    [Senate Hearing 109-130]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-130

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                      Department of Defense

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2006

                                              109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 2863

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
        Department of Defense Appropriations, 2006 (H.R. 2863)
    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

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-130

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2863

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             Department of Defense
                           Nondepartmental witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   _________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    99-854                      WASHINGTON : 2005
    _____________________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
                                     Office
      Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: (202) 512-1800   Fax: (202) 512-
                                      2250
                Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 deg.

                          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
                                  Lesley Kalan
                                  Kate Kaufer
                                Mazie R. Mattson
                                  Brian Potts
                                  Brian Wilson
                           Charles J. Houy (Minority)
                           Nicole Di Resta (Minority)
                            Betsy Schmid (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                 Janelle Treon
                          Kate Fitzpatrick (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 2, 2005

                                                                       Page

    Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.....     1

                            Wednesday, March 9, 2005

    Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................    31

                           Wednesday, March 16, 2005

    Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................    99

                            Wednesday, April 6, 2005

    Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   193

                           Wednesday, April 20, 2005

    Department of Defense:
        National Guard...............................................   237
        Reserves.....................................................   295

                           Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary...................   347

                             Tuesday, May 10, 2005

    Department of Defense: Medical Programs..........................   419

                            Wednesday, May 11, 2005

    Department of Defense: Missile Defense Program...................   517

                             Tuesday, May 17, 2005

    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   567

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

                                           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, Allard, and
    Dorgan.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                     Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

    STATEMENT OF TINA W. JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                (COMPTROLLER)
    ACCOMPANIED BY ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, DIRECTOR, FORCE STRUCTURE,
                RESOURCES, AND ASSESSMENTS, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, JOINT
                CHIEFS OF STAFF

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good morning. We're pleased to have you
    appear before us, Ms. Jonas. And I see you're accompanied by
    Admiral Willard, the Director of the Force Structures,
    Resources, and Assessments of the Joint Chiefs. We look forward
    to your testimony. I appreciated our visit before the hearing.
        We remain in some very critical missions around the globe,
    and totally involved in this war on terrorism. We are truly
    grateful for the commitment of the forces under the Department
    of Defense, and their commitment to duty and the values we
    stand for. We've received this request for supplemental funding
    and are reviewing that request. I had an occasion last night to
    discuss it with Members of the House, also. We're going to do
    our best to move as rapidly as possible on this request.
        This is the first of 10 hearings that we will hold on the
    total request of the Department for fiscal year 2006. The
    President's request includes $419.3 billion for the Department
    of Defense, which is a 4.8 percent increase over last year.
        We will make your statement part of the record in full, Ms.
    Jonas, and I would leave room in the record for a statement
    from our co-chairman, if he wishes to make one.
        Would the chairman of the full committee wish to make a
    statement?

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to be here to help
    welcome the Under Secretary and Admiral Willard to the hearing.
    We appreciate very much your assistance to our committee's
    inquiry into the budget request submitted by the
    administration. We are very impressed--I'm very impressed with
    the military's performance in these very difficult and
    challenging times in Afghanistan, Iraq, the southern Indian
    Ocean and elsewhere around the world. I think the military has
    distinguished itself in a way that reflects great credit on all
    of the men and women who serve in the military, and who support
    the military directly in the Department of Defense. We
    appreciate that good work and the outstanding bravery and
    sacrifice of the families, and for all who are contributing to
    the successful operations around the world in our behalf.
        I also happened to observe a letter I got from a pilot, who
    was on the Abraham Lincoln, describing his firsthand
    impressions of the relief efforts that were spontaneously
    provided by our military forces in the region of the tsunami
    disaster that struck without warning and with such great
    unbelievable damage. The military forces who were involved
    voluntarily in reacting to that, and the leadership provided by
    the military in some of those areas of the world, was truly
    outstanding. And I commend you all who have had a role in
    helping make available resources to that operation.
        We're interested in understanding the budget request and
    making sure that what we do in terms, of appropriating funds to
    support your efforts, continues us on this path toward
    contributing, like no one else can, to world peace and security
    and the protection of our homeland.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate you
    allowing me to join you this morning. And I don't have any
    opening comments or anything, and I'll save most of my time for
    when we get to the question and comment.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        I would say, to my two colleagues, that Senator Inouye and
    I had occasion to visit with Admiral Fargo and listen to him in
    describing some of his impressions about the way the commander
    of the Pacific reacted after the tsunami disasters. And we were
    very impressed with the total commitment that was made and the
    swiftness of the organization to respond to that terrible
    incident.
        As I said, we have printed your statement in the record.
    Ms. Jonas, we'd be pleased to have your comments.

                       OPENING STATEMENT OF TINA W. JONAS

        Ms. Jonas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I won't take
    much time here this morning, but just to thank the subcommittee
    for inviting us here to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2006 Defense budget request.
        As you have noted, the request is $419.3 billion. This is a
    4.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level,
    and we look forward to working with you on this request as we
    move forward, and also appreciate the subcommittee's
    consideration of our fiscal year 2005 supplemental request.
        I would simply like to point out a few of the highlights in
    this budget. Some of the highlights of this budget include our
    commitment to supporting the global war on terror. In
    conjunction with the supplemental funds, we have included
    significant funds for readiness. Our operation and maintenance
    (O&M) funds are at $147.8 billion. This is up $11 billion over
    the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Four billion dollars of
    that increase directly goes toward readiness. And so, that's an
    important feature of the budget. We've included additional
    funds for chemical and biological defense. Funding for fiscal
    year 2006 is $1.6 billion. We added $2.1 billion to the program
    for fiscal years 2006-2011.
        We continue our commitment to the special operations forces
    (SOF), sustaining that and including additional personnel,
    about 1,400 new personnel. And the funding for special
    operations forces is about $4.1 billion for fiscal year 2006.
        We have included a request for special operations forces
    retention funds in this budget, as well as requested some funds
    in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental. And I would just note
    that, since 2001, we're up 73 percent on our SOF budget, so we
    continue our commitment there.
        A key feature of this budget is also the restructuring of
    our ground forces. As many of you have heard, we have made a
    commitment to the Army to provide about $48 billion for their
    modularity program, using a combination of supplemental and
    baseline funds to do that.
        I would also note that we have $1.9 billion in the budget
    to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
    Commission recommendations, which is very important to
    restructure our installations at home. And, in conjunction with
    that, we are funding the global posture initiative, about $400
    million for that. The key is that these two initiatives are
    intertwined, and the BRAC recommendations will be informed by
    the global posture initiative. Under the global posture
    initiative, we expect to bring home to the United States (U.S.)
    about 70,000 military personnel, and about 100,000 families. So
    that's very important.
        Also key in our investment areas, we are developing joint
    military capabilities. We've got a $78 billion procurement
    budget, and this is $3 billion higher than our fiscal year 2005
    President's budget request. I would just note that this is
    about double what it was during the mid 1980s, so we continue
    our investment there. And procurement does increase over the
    program plan, reaching $119 billion by 2011.
        We continue our commitment to missile defense. We have
    about $8.8 billion in the program, and $7.8 billion in the
    Missile Defense Agency.
        We continue investment in shipbuilding and in aircraft, and
    I have some of those details in my prepared statement.
        Finally, I'd just like to mention that we have a strong
    commitment to our military families and our military members.
    We increased the base pay by 3.1 percent. We're increasing our
    benefits. For our healthcare benefits, we added $1.6 billion to
    the defense health program to make sure that the program is
    fully funded.
        We continue our no-out-of-pocket-cost commitment on basic
    allowance for housing. Most servicemembers will receive about a
    4 percent increase to that allowance in this budget. And we are
    on track to fund the elimination of all inadequate housing by
    2007.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I just would like to close and, again, thank you. I know
    you've heard from the Secretary on the fiscal year 2005
    supplemental request, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Tina W. Jonas

        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is my pleasure to be
    here to discuss President Bush's fiscal year 2006 defense budget
    request. You have received extensive materials on the budget, which I
    do not want to duplicate in my statement. Instead I will briefly
    underscore some of the most important features of our request.
        First, I want to thank this committee for its strong support for
    our men and women in uniform. We look forward to continuing to work
    with you to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to
    carry out their difficult and dangerous missions.
        The President's budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD)
    for fiscal year 2006 is $419.3 billion in discretionary budget
    authority, a $19.2 billion increase (4.8 percent) over the fiscal year
    2005 enacted level. Combined with fiscal year 2005 supplemental
    appropriations, this request includes sufficient funding to sustain the
    President's pledges to defeat global terrorism, restructure America's
    armed forces and global defense posture, develop and field advanced
    warfighting capabilities, and take good care of our forces.

                      SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

        The fiscal year 2006 budget supports the Global War on Terror
    (GWOT) by keeping U.S. forces combat ready and strengthening our
    overall defense capabilities. Readiness is especially critical in this
    time of war because forces must be prepared to deploy on short notice.
    Reflecting this importance, the fiscal year 2006 budget includes $147.8
    billion in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts--where training,
    maintenance, and other readiness essentials are funded--nearly $11
    billion over the fiscal year 2005 enacted amount.
        Critical to the fight against terror, the President's plan adds
    $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2006-2011 for chemical and biological
    defense --achieving total funding of $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2006.
    We sustain our commitment to our Special Operations Forces (SOF)
    capabilities, providing $4.1 billion for fiscal year 2006. We are
    adding 1,200 military personnel, including 4 SEAL platoons, and 200
    civilians. We also are adding $50 million for programs to boost SOF
    retention. (The fiscal year 2005 supplemental includes $62 million for
    SOF retention.) Since 2001, our investment in SOF capabilities is up by
    $1.7 billion or 73 percent. The budget includes $9.5 billion for
    activities related to homeland security--such as detection and
    protection against weapons of mass destruction, emergency preparedness
    and response, and protection of critical infrastructure.

              RESTRUCTURING U.S. FORCES AND GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE

        The fiscal year 2006 budget provides funding to continue to work to
    restructure U.S. forces and our global defense posture and basing.
        Restructuring Ground Forces.--The Department has made a major
    commitment to restructuring the Army--adding $35billion over 7 years
    (fiscal year2005-2011) to the $13 billion in the Army baseline budget.
    In fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, the Department proposes to
    fund Army restructuring through supplemental appropriations because
    acceleration of this effort is urgent and vital to the war on terror.
    The funds requested in supplementals will accelerate the restructuring
    of the ground forces moving into the theater and reset those forces
    rotating out of theater. This effort will expand the operating combat
    force of the Army--making our forces more effective in the Global War
    on Terror and reducing the demand and strain on our military units and
    troops. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, we will request funding in the
    baseline budget to restructure the rest of the Army.
        Restructuring will increase the number of Army brigades and convert
    them into brigade combat teams (BCTs) that are capable of independent
    operations. The Active Army will expand from 33 maneuver brigades in
    fiscal year 2003 to 43 BCTs in fiscal year 2007.
        The Marine Corps is restructuring to add two active infantry
    battalions and other combat and support units--increasing its
    warfighting power and reducing stress on capabilities that are
    currently in high demand.
        Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).--The President's budget also
    includes $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2006 to implement the 2005 BRAC
    Commission recommendations. The previous BRAC rounds eliminated about
    21 percent of DOD infrastructure and generated savings of about $7
    billion per year.
        Global Posture.--Closely linked to the BRAC process is the
    President's global posture restructuring, which will ensure that U.S.
    forces and equipment are located where they can best respond to likely
    requirements in today's security environment. It will return 70,000
    military personnel and 100,000 family members to the United States, and
    relocate forces and equipment that must remain overseas. As the 2005
    BRAC Commission considers how to streamline and restructure the
    Department's installations, it will have the benefit of this global
    posture restructuring plan.

              DEVELOPING AND FIELDING JOINT MILITARY CAPABILITIES

        The fiscal year 2006 budget funds a balanced combination of
    programs to develop and field the capabilities most needed by America's
    military--today and well into the future.
        Procurement funding in fiscal year 2006 is $78 billion, $3 billion
    higher than the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request of $74.9
    billion. This $78 billion is almost double the low point of $42.6
    billion provided in fiscal year 1996. Future procurement funding will
    steadily increase and reach $119 billion in fiscal year 2011.
        Missile Defense.--The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $7.8 billion
    for the Missile Defense Agency to continue to strengthen U.S. missile
    defenses, focusing more intensely on the most promising technologies.
    The fiscal year 2006 budget supports the continuing acquisition of
    Ground-Based Interceptors, Standard Missile 3 missiles, and increased
    radar capabilities in California and Alaska. As you know we just had a
    successful test of an interceptor missile launched from an Aegis
    cruiser--the fifth successful sea-based intercept in six tests.
        Shipbuilding.--The budget includes $9.4 billion in fiscal year 2006
    for shipbuilding. This funding supports procurement of four ships: a
    Virginia class submarine, an LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious
    transport dock ship, a Littoral Combat Ship, and a T-AKE dry cargo and
    ammunition ship. The Navy's restructuring under its Fleet Response Plan
    has made more of its ships available for rapid deployment. In addition,
    with precision weapons and newer platforms, today's ships and naval
    aircraft are far more capable. For example, the Navy now measures
    targets destroyed per sortie rather than the number of sorties per
    target. These changes are increasing the effective size and capability
    of the Navy.
        Army Modernization.--The modernization of the Army and the
    development of new combat capability are critical to the future of its
    restructured modular force. Most critical is the Future Combat Systems
    (FCS) program, which will develop a family of advanced, networked, air
    and ground systems--combat and support, manned and unmanned. FCS
    funding is $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2006. The program has been
    restructured to deliver transformational technologies to today's force
    as soon as they mature. The advantage of this change is that it will
    accelerate the upgrading and increased joint operability of current
    Army forces.
        Aircraft.--The fiscal year 2006 budget continues our investment in
    the new generation of tactical aircraft, including $5.0 billion for the
    Joint Strike Fighter, $4.3 billion for the F/A-22, $2.9 billion for the
    F/A-18E/F, and $1.8 billion for the V-22 Osprey. Under current plans
    the Air Force is scheduled to procure F/A-22s through fiscal year 2008
    to reach a total of 179 aircraft. The budget also includes $3.7 billion
    for the C-17 and $1.5 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles. The 2005
    Quadrennial Defense Review will assess U.S. capabilities for sustaining
    air dominance and other aircraft requirements as part of its broader
    analysis.

                           TAKING CARE OF OUR FORCES

        Most importantly, the fiscal year 2006 budget maintains the
    President's commitment to take good care of our military people and
    their families. It reflects our conviction that people are the nation's
    most important defense asset. The budget includes a 3.1 percent
    increase in military base pay and provides significant funding to
    ensure high quality health care for our military families. The fiscal
    year 2006 budget provides about $20 billion for the Defense Health
    Program and $7 billion for the military personnel who support the
    health care program. The budget sustains our commitment to no out-of-
    pocket costs for military members living in private housing, by
    increasing the Basic Allowance for Housing by an average of 4 percent.
    And the budget keeps the Department on track to fund by fiscal year
    2007 the elimination of all inadequate military family housing units in
    the United States, and to fund by fiscal year 2009 the elimination of
    all inadequate units worldwide.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

        Before closing, I want to thank this committee for beginning work
    quickly on the President's fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations
    request of $74.9 billion for the Department of Defense. Rapid and full
    approval of the request is crucial to fulfilling our military's
    requirements for the rest of this fiscal year.
        Two-thirds of the supplemental is to cover costs for ongoing
    military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the
    supplemental includes $11.9 billion to restore or replace equipment
    damaged or destroyed in combat. This funding is crucial to ensure the
    readiness of the force. It consists of $3.2 billion for depot
    maintenance, $5.4 billion to replace military items destroyed or
    expended during combat operations, and $3.3 billion to improve
    protection of our forces.
        The supplemental also funds the vital strategic goal of training
    and equipping military and security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Strengthening these forces is essential to the long-term security and
    stability in both nations, and will enable them to become more self-
    sufficient and less reliant on U.S and coalition forces.

                                    CLOSING

        In conclusion, the President's fiscal year 2005 supplemental
    request and fiscal year 2006 budget provide the funds necessary to
    support the global war on terror, restructure our forces and America's
    global defense posture, develop and field advanced military
    capabilities, and maintain the well-being of our military people and
    their families. I urge your support for this request, as well as for
    the President's proposed fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations.
    Thank you.

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        I know the chairman has another hearing at Homeland
    Security. Would you have any questions, Senator?
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, the only question I have
    relates to the supplemental.
        You know, that we have had a review of that supplemental,
    and it will be coming to the floor soon. We understand that it
    is a matter of some urgency, although when we were having our
    initial hearing and reviewing the request, there was some
    question about when the money actually was needed. Some said in
    March; others, April or later. What is the situation with the
    need for this supplemental for some $75 to $76 billion for the
    Department of Defense?

                          WHEN SUPPLEMENTAL IS NEEDED

        Ms. Jonas. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
    the cooperation of this subcommittee and the full committee
    with respect to moving that legislation along. We can get
    through the second quarter fairly easily. Getting into the
    third quarter, we begin to have some difficulty. And, as you
    may know, the services have to then make plans in anticipation
    of their funding flows. So I would say once we start getting
    into the third quarter, we begin to have some issues.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        And I share the chairman's comments about that. I'm still
    not clear what you said, however. You said you could get
    through the second quarter. That ends in March. And you have
    difficulties in the third quarter.
        Ms. Jonas. I think----
        Senator Stevens. When do you really need the money?
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly by April or May, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Can you draw a line in the sand?
        Ms. Jonas. April would be better than May, sir.
        Senator Stevens. We're concerned about the stress on the
    total force and what this means to retention. I'm informed
    that--this is an all-volunteer force, of course--that the Army
    retention was retained last year at the 10 percent goal, but
    the ability to maintain their contribution to the total force
    is still of some concern, and that the marines missed their
    requirement by a small amount, the first time in 9 years. Can
    you tell us what initiatives are contained in this program for
    fiscal year 2006 that would help reduce the stress on the
    military and their families and help us with retention and
    recruitment?

                        REDUCING STRESS ON THE MILITARY

        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I would note, in the
    fiscal year 2005 supplemental, we are asking to increase our
    bonuses for those who are willing to join the Reserves, and
    asking to pay for a maximum up to $10,000. So that relief would
    be helpful.
        Senator Stevens. That's for people who decide to become
    regular? They're in the Reserves; they want to sign up--you
    want them to sign up and become regular forces?
        Ms. Jonas. This is encouraging Active duty to sign up for
    the Reserves.
        Senator Stevens. Oh, the other way around.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Would they remain on Active duty, then?
        Ms. Jonas. They would be joining the Reserve. And I'll
    defer here to Admiral Willard on that.

                           ACTIVE/RESERVE RECRUITING

        Admiral Willard. Sir, these are Active duty that are ending
    their terms in Active duty and would transfer into the Reserve
    force, with a likelihood that they would, under their current
    circumstances, be called up to continue to perform.
        Senator Stevens. How is that program going? Is it underway
    now?
        Admiral Willard. It's currently in the budget, so, yes,
    sir, in that sense, it is. As you point out, there are
    challenges, and they're more widespread than just incentivizing
    transfers from Active to Reserve. I would comment that, within
    the supplemental, there are a variety of efforts underway to
    reduce stress on the force. The reorganization of our ground
    forces, the modularity program for the Army, is one method of
    doing that, in trying to increase the number of brigade combat
    teams that are deployable. So we are attempting to reduce the
    ratio that--for deployment--that we are currently encountering.
    And that will happen over time. So, once again, a number of
    incentives to try and reduce the stress on the force. As you
    point out, the retention and recruitment numbers for the Army
    are down; and, for the Marine Corps, are very slightly down.
        I would note that, in the Active force, we are in pretty
    good shape in recruitment and retention, and that this is the
    time of year when we typically have a downturn in monthly
    recruitment/retention. And following schools getting out in the
    summertime, we normally make the upturn, so that at the end of
    the year this evens out. We have more concern in our Reserve
    component with regard to recruitment and retention. And, there,
    we're monitoring the trends very closely. And the incentives,
    as Secretary Jonas points out, are going to be an important
    factor in attempting to maintain the numbers there.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.

                     PHASING IN NEW FUNDING FOR OPERATIONS

        Ms. Jonas, the supplemental that we have before the full
    committee is $42.5 billion to support military operation and
    equipment. I'm informed that the operating funds will expire on
    September 30 under that proposal, and that the estimated
    recurring military operational costs average $4.3 billion a
    month for operations, and $800 million a month for Operation
    Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. Now, tell us how these fit
    together. Your current funds, are they exhausted for 2005? And
    when does the money from the supplemental have to phase into
    those operations?
        Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Senator.
        First of all, if I hadn't mentioned it, we appreciate the
    help that we got from the Congress--and your subcommittee,
    specifically--on the $25 billion that has been appropriated.
    Seventeen billion of that has been allocated to the services
    for operations. The $3 billion has been also allocated for
    force protection matters, and they are currently using those
    funds.
        I can certainly get you, for the record, the exact
    obligation rates, but they are using those funds currently.
        [The information follows:]

        As of February 28, 2005, $30.4 billion has been obligated
    in support of the Global War on Terror from funds appropriated
    in Title IX ($25 billion) and from cash flowing of fiscal year
    2005 baseline funds. A summary of the amount obligated is shown
    below:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Baseline     Title IX
                                          Funds        Funds        Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operation Iraqi Freedom..........       16,287        9,558       25,845
    Operation Enduring Freedom.......        2,528        1,072        3,600
    Operation Noble Eagle............          905  ...........          905
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................       19,720       10,630       30,350
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. Jonas. We would certainly hope to have this
    supplemental legislation that we've put before you, the $74.9
    billion, as soon as possible to help alleviate the concerns of
    the services. Again, I would say probably April would be better
    than May, with respect to getting those funds. I don't have the
    exact obligation rates for you this morning. I would be happy
    to provide that for the record on the $25 billion, though.
        Senator Stevens. Well, what I'm really trying to get at is,
    we gave you $25 billion, which was, sort of, a cushion to take
    you--a bridge funding to take you through this year. It sounds
    like you've allocated them--all of that money to operations and
    equipment maintenance. Is that right?
        Ms. Jonas. The preponderance of the funds; $17 billion is
    the right figure.
        Senator Stevens. And that, plus the funds that are already
    in 2005 are such that you've now got $42\1/2\ billion in
    addition to that, that you need before October 1, right?
        Ms. Jonas. Correct, sir. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I don't think it takes a rocket
    scientist to figure out that you're spending it faster than the
    rate you've given us in the past, then. What is the rate that
    is being expended in operations and maintenance, on a monthly
    basis?
        Ms. Jonas. Our current operations in Iraq are running us
    about $4.1 billion. It's $800 million in Afghanistan per month.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I think we need to understand this
    cash flowing a little bit better, because we're going to get
    some questions about this supplemental if we're not careful.
        Let me turn this over, however, to the chairman, if he has
    any additional requests, and then to--Senator Burns, I think,
    came in before Senator Allard.
        Senator, do you have any additional questions?
        Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                     GAINING MORE RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE UNITS

        Monday, I was out in San Diego and did a little tromping
    around out there. And I was reminded that, 50 years ago, right
    now, I was a boot out there in that Marine Corps Recruit Depot
    (MCRD). And I didn't have to get my nose broke this time to
    remind me. I know how you can save a little money in this
    budget. I noticed that there's a big push now for restructuring
    ground forces, focusing on Army brigade light units for quick
    strike force in the United States Army. I would suggest you've
    already got it. I would suggest you've got a United States
    Marine Corps that is a strike force, and the best in the world.
    Mobile. So why are we training people to do this redundancy? If
    I noticed anything in the supplemental that came up, both in
    the State Department and for Defense, we identified some areas
    where there is some redundancy.
        My question is, How come we're not looking in that
    direction, rather than restructuring a unit that is designed to
    do other things? Can I get a response to that?

                                ARMY MODULARITY

        Admiral Willard. Yes, sir, you can. The Army is
    reorganizing to try and make itself more rapidly deployable,
    flexible, more self-sustaining, in terms of the units that they
    put in the field. At the same time, the Marine Corps is
    restructuring itself--to a lesser extent, but, nonetheless,
    restructuring itself--with the addition of infantry battalions,
    combat support, and combat service support elements.
        I'm not sure ``redundancy'' is the term that I would use.
    But, rather, the variety of our ground forces, whether it be
    Army, Marine Corps, special operations, are all undergoing an
    evolution right now to try and reorganize themselves and
    optimize themselves. And the question we would ask is whether
    the capacity for the country is there among those ground
    forces. And we believe that it will require reorganization
    across the board and an understanding of not only roles and
    missions, but a capabilities mix across the board that will get
    this right. It's intended that that is one of the study areas
    in the upcoming Defense review. But, again, the supplemental
    makes an effort to establish that organization across our
    ground forces, specifically targeting Army and Marine Corps,
    right now.
        Senator Burns. Well, I just thought there was some
    redundancy. And it appears, as you know, if you read where the
    money is going, and how it's going, that would seem to be
    something that we would take interest with up here on the
    taxpayer dollar. And I'm not one of these that think that we
    can get it done on nothing. But we know that we're in a
    different kind of a world now. We are in a different kind of a
    challenge to this country and its freedoms. And so, there has
    to be some things redundant that some of us up here might not
    understand. But I appreciate your comments on that.
        That's the only thing that I have right now. I think, in
    this budget, we've got the opportunity to do right. I usually
    visit military installations that are in Montana, and will be
    coming to you for a little problem we've got up there, but
    that's for another day. And it's not a problem; it's just
    another challenge that we have, as far as our defense and
    capabilities and our concerns.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, thank you for coming today. And I thank the chairman.
        And I have a statement that I would like to be part of the
    record, and I will ask unanimous consent that it be so.
        Senator Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Jonas, Admiral Willard, thank you for being here this
    morning to testify on the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal
    year 2006 Budget. I will keep my statement brief and retain the
    remainder of my remarks for the record.
        I note that the President's budget request for the
    Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 is $419.3 billion--
    excluding the supplemental, also before this committee for
    consideration--representing a $19.2 billion increase (or 4.8
    percent) over last year's fiscal year 2005 level. I think the
    fiscal year 2006 budget on the whole, is a good one. Your job
    is not an easy one--especially in the current environment, with
    military operations around the world and in the midst of the
    ongoing War on Terror. I do think, however, despite all of the
    competing interests at hand, you were able to strike a fairly
    good balance between all accounts and competing needs. This
    budget appears to be one that funds core needs to allow troops
    currently engaged, to do so safely and to the best of their
    ability.
        I am pleased to see that this budget also prepares our
    military forces for future engagements, where battlefields will
    look much different than they have in years past. We must
    ensure our military transforms in such a way as to have the
    right military capabilities for any future engagement. An
    overall Research and Development (R&D) request of $69.4 billion
    helps get us there.
        As you know, the men and women of our active, Guard and
    Reserve components have seen an increased operations tempo
    (optempo) over the past few years in particular. In my State of
    Montana, we have over 40 percent of the Guard's total force
    mobilized. While I know these men and women love what they do
    and love serving their country, this increased optempo does
    not, however, come without costs--costs not only to guardsmen
    and reservists themselves, but also to their families and
    employers, too.
        I am pleased to see that the budget addresses this issue
    and looks at ways to rebalance our forces and reduce the need
    for involuntary reserve mobilization. I do think it is
    important to look at ways to add folks to areas where we
    currently have a shortage, such as military police,
    transportation and civilian affairs. I see we are doing exactly
    this, in this budget.
        Increased operations also wear and tear on the military's
    already aging equipment. This year's budget proposes $147.8
    billion for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account, up
    from $137 billion in fiscal year 2005. The procurement account
    has been proposed at $78 billion, just slightly down from the
    fiscal year 2005 enacted level of $78.1 billion.
        The United States military would not be the best fighting
    force in the world without the great people who wear the
    uniform. It is important that we take care of our military men
    and women and ensure their quality of life is good. I am
    pleased to see this is a priority in the fiscal year 2006
    budget. The Military Personnel account is funded at $108.9
    billion in fiscal year 2006, while the Military Construction
    and Family Housing accounts request is a total of only $12
    billion. I note the 3.1 percent increase in military base pay
    and the 2.3 percent increase in civilian pay included in the
    President's budget. I am also pleased to see the 4 percent
    increase in the Basic Housing Allowance, and that DOD appears
    to be on track to eliminate all inadequate military family
    housing in the United States by fiscal year 2007. The budget
    also includes the expansion of TRICARE benefits, to allow
    health care coverage up to 90 days prior to activation for
    certain Reserve Components, with post-mobilization coverage of
    180 days.
        Our military has performed nobly in all of its missions--
    especially in Afghanistan and the continuing conflict in Iraq.
    This country's fighting force is extremely skilled and capable,
    and it is our responsibility to ensure our brave military men
    and women have the tools and equipment needed to do their job
    so they may return home to their loved ones safely and as
    quickly as possible.
        You will continue to have my full support in making sure
    our brave military men and women--wherever they may be
    engaged--have the tools, training and equipment to do the
    dangerous jobs with which they have been tasked.
        Again, thanks for coming before our subcommittee today. I
    look forward to your testimony this morning.

                           CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION

        Senator Stevens. Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Jonas, I had a chance to visit with you and Mr.
    Wolfowitz yesterday. And you were sitting on his right hand
    when I was drilling him about the Chemical Weapons Convention
    Treaty.
        Ms. Jonas. That's right, sir.
        Senator Allard. And so, I don't know as I need to go over
    that too much. I would like to put some in the record in this
    subcommittee, though, and the fact that the President's budget,
    Defense budget, provides for $1.4 billion for chemical weapons,
    the demilitarization program. Now, that's consistent with
    previous requests, but it doesn't measure up to the full cost
    of the program, as we see it. And, you know, I look out as to
    what dates we're expected to comply with that convention, and
    the plant in Colorado, for example, is a decade past the
    deadline. I know Kentucky has a special problem, just like we
    do, so you'll probably hear from Senator McConnell also, on
    this very issue. We had testimony from Secretary of State
    Condoleezza Rice who said that when we sign into those treaties
    it's important that--in fact, she was unequivocal about this--
    she said that it's important that we comply with the treaties.
    We're pretty well behind on the dates of expected compliance on
    the treaty. And so, we'll be asking some tough questions. It
    seems to me like the program has been backsliding. And I know
    we have special problems in both Kentucky and Colorado, and we
    want to work with that.
        And the question I have--Mr. Wolfowitz, yesterday, said
    that he's going to reexamine where we are, as far as that
    program is concerned. I appreciate his willingness to do that.
    But what I failed to get from him was a timeline.
        Ms. Jonas. Okay.
        Senator Allard. When does he expect to get back--or when
    you would expect to have the reexamination completed and get
    back to me and also the Kentucky delegation?
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly. Senator, we'd be happy to work with
    you, as the Deputy Secretary indicated yesterday, and also with
    the other concerned Senators and delegations.
        I don't know that I have a timeline for you this morning,
    but I would certainly be able to do that and find out soon and
    get back with you and your staffs. We will continue to work
    closely with you as you consider this legislation and as we
    work to figure out some of the cost issues that the Deputy
    talked about yesterday.
        [The information follows:]

        As directed by the December 23, 2005 Acquisition Decision
    Memorandum the Program Manager, Assembled Chemical Weapons
    Alternatives and Director, Chemical Material Agency developed
    an assessment of alternatives for meeting the Chemical Weapons
    Convention extended 100 percent deadline of April 2012. On
    April 15, 2005 the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology & Logistics made a decision to exclude
    transportation for the time being and to proceed with the
    alternatives that balanced cost, schedule, and performance. The
    Program Manager, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives and
    Director, Chemical Material Agency will provide the program
    plan by mid-May that includes the design effort schedule. The
    Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology &
    Logistics will review and approve the critical designs based on
    the schedule submitted in mid-May.

        Senator Allard. Yes, I've got a lot of concerns about the
    program. I appreciate your being willing to work with the
    deadline. You know, if we looked at the GPRA, you know,
    Government Performance and Results Act, their evaluation of
    that program was an ineffective rating in the last budget. I
    haven't had a chance to look at it on this budget. There are so
    many questions on that program, I think it needs to be
    examined. You can expect me to be there.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.

                            MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. The other thing that I have concern on is
    the Missile Defense Program. I use to chair the subcommittee
    that had oversight in Armed Services on missile defense. I
    noted in the President's budget that he has cut it by $1
    billion. We're also looking at, perhaps, some additional cuts
    in the future. I think somebody suggested that in the
    Department of Defense. So I would like to hear some of your
    thoughts and what your plans are for missile defense.
        Ms. Jonas. Okay. I may turn some of the planning piece over
    to the Admiral to talk to. I would say this budget maintains a
    commitment to the Block 2004 and the Block 2006 programs, which
    are substantial. The Block 2004 program has 20 ground-based
    interceptors, 10 sea-based interceptors. And, of course, the
    Block 2006 program would add an additional 20 ground-based
    interceptors and an additional 40 sea-based, and with the
    accompanying radars and infrastructure on that.
        So the President remains committed to this program. We
    remain committed to the program. And maybe the Admiral can fill
    in a little bit on the rest of the program.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Admiral.

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Admiral Willard. And I think the points that Secretary
    Jonas brings up, with regard to achieving our milestones with
    regard to interceptors, is an important element of this, to
    represent the fact that this budget supports the missile
    defense levels of effort, ongoing.
        General Obering has been asked to look for efficiencies
    within his organization, and he's done that, and that's been
    part of the savings that we've seen. In addition, his
    methodology for achieving his missile defense objectives dealt
    with a number of different programs, varieties of options, to
    attain those missile defense objectives that he was intending
    to neck down over time as some of those options became more
    promising than others. And he is doing that.
        And, frankly, the savings that were taken from missile
    defense has had him invest in that option sooner rather than
    later. And, in a fairly recent summary of his missile defense
    activity, it's evident to us that he has both achieved the
    efficiencies and has laid out his milestones to attain the
    President's objectives in missile defense with this savings
    intact.
        So, we're confident that General Obering has the plan to
    achieve what we hope to achieve objectively out of missile
    defense.

             SUSTAINING MISSILE DEFENSE TESTING AND QUALITY CONTROL

        Senator Allard. Well, I'm pleased to hear that, you know,
    you're getting more missiles in the ground and you're going
    ahead with that. I do think that we need to make sure we don't
    back off on our testing, because, as you know, the last two
    failures we had--as far as I'm concerned, weren't because of
    new technology. The gates aren't opening right or there's a
    misfiring of some type on the ground, and we haven't even
    gotten an interceptor in the air. So we've got to have some
    controls in that, because every time you have a failure in
    something like that--and particularly when it's older
    technology and it ought to be operating--it's difficult to
    explain up here to those people who oppose missile defense.
    It's a great program. We need to have it, and we need to make
    sure that it doesn't stumble.
        And so, I would hope that we have the testing part of it,
    so we don't have the old technology, so we could test out the
    new technology, find out how it performs in the air. We have
    had a lot of good tests, that succeeded. Then we've had some of
    these failures. They've been disappointments to me, because it
    hasn't been on the new technology side; it's been on the old
    technology side.
        So, again, I just raise some concerns about that and would
    hope that, if you're cutting back on the spending on that, that
    where we've got enough quality control in there that we're not
    losing sight of our older technology. We know it works. We just
    have to make sure the mechanics of it are there so we get a
    successful firing. So I just wanted to share that with you.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't want to abuse my time here. I don't
    have a time limit here. So I will yield back. And if there's
    more time later on, I may have some more questions. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Well, since there are so few of us, I
    decided not to put a time limit on, but we'll come back to you,
    Senator.
        Senator Dorgan.

                    MONTHLY SPENDING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I have read the statement. I was detained this morning. I'm
    sorry I wasn't here for your presentations. But I would like to
    ask a couple of questions.
        We have had questions, previously, about the amount of
    money that is being spent on a monthly basis in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. My understand is, you were asked that question
    this morning, and the answer is about $4.9 billion----
        Ms. Jonas. That's correct----
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Per month?
        Ms. Jonas [continuing]. Senator.

              WHAT OPERATIONS FUNDING IS INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL

        Senator Dorgan. Questions have been raised previously about
    what is in your budget request for the next fiscal year and
    what is left out of the request. I want to just take you
    through this issue of why the request does not include funds
    for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've raised
    this the last two successive years. And the Congress also
    included a provision, as you will recall, last year, asking
    that the President's budget should include a request for funds
    for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
        Having said that as a precursor, tell me, the supplemental
    request that is now before the Congress includes funding for
    what kind of operations that have not been requested in your
    annual budget?
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, the funds that are included in the
    supplemental are those related to Operation Enduring Freedom
    and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the past, we've asked for
    Operation Noble Eagle costs in the supplemental. We've included
    those in the baseline budget this year, which is a change.
        Senator Dorgan. But if I can try to understand this, the
    costs for an operation, the costs would include the cost of the
    soldiers. Obviously, the cost of the soldiers----
        Ms. Jonas. For personnel----
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Exists whether you have the
    operation or don't have the operation. So that's a cost that I
    assume is in your regular budget request.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes. Our estimates are based on a cost model,
    which includes a number of different things, including
    personnel, transportation, other special pays, depending upon
    the deployment.
        Senator Dorgan. Okay, personnel--we have the personnel,
    whether they're in Iraq or not in Iraq. We're paying for them.
    So are they not in the regular budget? I'm just trying to
    understand----
        Ms. Jonas. They're incremental costs, Senator.
        Senator Dorgan. What's that?
        Ms. Jonas. Incremental costs of personnel including special
    pays--for example, hazardous duty pay, danger pay, other types
    of things.

                                PERSONNEL COSTS

        Admiral Willard. Additionally, there are personnel overage
    right now that is attendant to the war, and in the Army, in
    particular, and that is captured, as well, in the supplemental.
        Senator Dorgan. And those costs are something like $75
    billion a year, over and above that which is in the regular
    budget for the cost of personnel, the cost of transportation,
    the cost of weapons and so on? It's $75 billion a year?
        Ms. Jonas. The military personnel costs are about $16.9
    billion. The operations costs are $31.1 billion. We've
    requested $16.1 billion for procurement. This is different from
    past supplementals, and that is associated with what we call
    wear and tear on the equipment. We include about $3.2 billion
    for depot maintenance. These are readiness-related matters.
        As the Admiral pointed out earlier, we've asked for some
    funds for the Army's restructuring or modularity.
        Senator Dorgan. Right.
        Ms. Jonas. And that, of course, is related to units that
    are rotating into the theater, and then they're reset when they
    come out. So we want to make sure that those that are going in
    are prepared and ready to go, and those that come out are--
    their equipment is up to standard.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask, then, on--how much did you say
    was for wear and tear on equipment?
        Ms. Jonas. Well, we've got about $16 billion in the
    procurement account, which includes about $12 billion for the
    wear and tear, and also includes some force protection.
        Senator Dorgan. And that's in the supplemental.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. How much is in next year's budget for wear
    and tear on equipment?
        Ms. Jonas. We can get that number for the record.
        [The information follows:]

        The wear and tear on equipment due to deployments in Iraq
    and Afghanistan are generally costs over and above the on-going
    baseline equipment maintenance program. The fiscal year 2005
    supplemental includes $5.3 billion to finance the incremental
    (that is, above the baseline appropriation) costs of equipment
    maintenance. The additional funding requested for fiscal year
    2005 is: $1.4 billion for organizational level maintenance;
    $0.7 billion for intermediate level maintenance and $3.2
    billion for depot level maintenance. This work is required to
    bring weapons and weapon system platforms up to ready levels
    after the wear and tear of combat operations in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and other areas elsewhere in support of OIF and
    OEF.
        The Department anticipates that an fiscal year 2006
    Supplemental request will include funding for maintaining
    equipment returning from theater. The fiscal year 2006 cost has
    not yet been estimated but is likely to be in a similar range
    as reflected in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental.

        Ms. Jonas. We have normal depot maintenance that we do in
    the----
        Senator Dorgan. All right.
        Ms. Jonas [continuing]. In the regular budget.

                     APPROPRIATENESS OF USING SUPPLEMENTALS

        Senator Dorgan. Whether it's personnel or wear and tear on
    equipment, it seems to me like this is a kind of a game,
    unfortunately, that no money is requested for these
    extraordinary expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular
    budget, anticipating that we'll do a supplemental later, on an
    emergency basis, not paid for. And we do that each year.
        Now, the year before last, I asked this question. Last year
    I asked this question. I asked the question again this year. To
    use Secretary Rumsfeld's terms, it is certainly not unknowable
    that we will have expenditures from the regular budget next
    year with respect to ongoing operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. You can argue, we don't know exactly what the
    expenditures will be, but it is also the case that we know they
    will not be zero. So won't there, at some point, be a
    requirement for you to give us your best estimates of what we
    expect to expend in the coming year?
        Ms. Jonas. Well, certainly, I understand there is a
    significant amount of discussion between the Congress and the
    administration on the appropriateness of using supplemental
    funding for the war. I would note that Director Bolten
    testified a few weeks ago before the Senate Budget Committee
    and articulated his position, which is that these funds are
    one-time, not permanent costs, and that his position was that
    they should be funded in supplementals.
        So we clearly work very closely with the Office of
    Management and Budget on that, and we will work with them in
    the future on any future requirements.
        Senator Dorgan. But with--you know, only in Washington
    could Mr. Bolten say that, without evoking some sort of
    laughter. We understand that these are more than one-time
    knowable costs. We understand that from the year previous, the
    year previous to that. At some point, it becomes a game. And I
    understand why some want it perpetuated; but it would make much
    sense, it seems to me, for the Congress to receive from you
    what you expect to expend in the coming year, given the
    circumstances that you face.
        We certainly are going to support, and I'm going to vote
    for, the request for the urgent supplemental. I'm not going to
    suggest, and I don't think my colleagues will, that we should
    commit our troops and then not give you everything that is
    requested to support those troops. But I think when you get to
    the third or fourth year, where your contention is we're going
    to spend zero in the next year, or at least you have no
    knowledge of what we will spend, therefore, you will request
    zero for the specific operations, I think the Congress will be
    better served if you would say, ``Look, here's our best
    estimate. And we understand things can change, but here's what
    we think we will have to spend.''
        Ms. Jonas. I understand your concern, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. And Congress has put that, as you know, in
    the statute and requested that you do that. And you have not,
    this year. Why not? As you know, the statute exists that says
    you should.
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, we are constantly working with the Office
    of Management and Budget on a number of these things. We are
    working with them on the particular provision that you cited.
        Senator Dorgan. All right.
        Let me just ask, for a moment, about missile defense. Do I
    have a couple of more minutes?
        Senator Stevens. Yes.

                           MISSILE DEFENSE REDUCTIONS

        Senator Dorgan. About missile defense. You know, I'm one of
    those that's skeptical. I think we're spending a great deal of
    money on something that, at the moment, is not demonstrated to
    work. And it's very unusual, in any circumstance, to be buying
    products that are not demonstrated to have worked. But the $8.8
    billion in fiscal year 2006 is down from the current spending
    level, is that correct?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. And that relates to, Admiral, efficiencies
    in the program or to--can you describe to me the circumstances
    of the $1 billion reduction?

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Admiral Willard. Yeah. General Obering came back to the
    building to discuss the restructuring of his program, as would
    be necessary in order to incorporate those savings. And, in
    that, he showed a combination of efficiencies and decision
    points that he was making in order to neck down the number of
    options that he had for particular capabilities that he was
    seeking, based on their research and development programs, and
    the ones that appeared to be most promising. And he
    demonstrated his ability to deliver the interceptors, as
    Secretary Jonas pointed out earlier. So it's a combination of
    both in his plan.
        Senator Dorgan. Admiral, is there an open question of
    whether, at some point, this will be determined to be either a
    project or a program that works or doesn't work? And if there's
    a potential that we may decide, at some point, that it doesn't
    work--the last two tests, the missiles remained in the silo,
    for example--if there's a potential that, at some point, we may
    decide this doesn't work, would we then expect, on this
    subcommittee, a substantially reduced level of expenditure?
        Admiral Willard. I think, right now, that we're committed
    to the fact that it will work, and is working. And Senator
    Allard's point and disappointment with regard to the efforts
    that have occurred, the two test failures that have occurred
    that were really outside the high technology, new technologies
    areas, were a disappointment for all of us. I would point out
    that, on the maritime side, there was a successful test this
    past week in missile defense, and we are seeing progress made,
    both in terms of the technologies and in terms of those that
    are most promising in the concept of operations and in
    attaining this capability.
        So, first, I think the commitment that we're making in this
    budget to missile defense is based on a level of confidence
    that we have that we're on the right track. That said, we're
    constantly reviewing the appropriateness of all of our
    capabilities, to include missile defense, and will continue to
    do that. And we'll make adjustments along the way if, in those
    reviews, we determine that either the security environment has
    changed, or will change in the future, or our capabilities are
    more or less attainable.
        Senator Dorgan. My State housed the only antiballistic
    missile program that was ever deployed in this country. It was
    operational for only 30 days. But my own view is that the
    threat meter that would describe the threats against this
    country would provide that the least likely threat would be a
    rogue nation or a terrorist organization would use an
    intercontinental ballistic missile to deliver a nuclear
    warhead.
        Having said all that, we're spending a massive amount of
    money on this program at a time when we don't have quite as
    much money as we had hoped to try to deal with our fiscal
    policy issues. And I hope that we take a hard look at this
    program, with a critical eye. And if, at some point, we
    determine hitting a bullet with a bullet is not going to work,
    that we don't pursue this with tens and tens of billions of
    dollars.
        Let me----
        Senator Stevens. Senator, we're going to have to move on, I
    think.
        Senator Dorgan. Yeah, let me--Mr. Chairman, let me thank
    our witnesses.
        The first line of questioning is only to try to elicit, as
    best we can, what our total obligation and costs are going to
    be, not whether we support our troops or whether we support
    missions. I do, and want to be helpful, but I think, in the
    longer term, it is better for the Congress if we put all of
    these estimated costs on the table so that we can evaluate
    them. And I appreciate very much your service. Thank you for
    being here.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
        One of these days, we'll have to have a debate about that
    missile defense system, because I certainly disagree with what
    you said. The Aegis system worked four and five times. The
    system in your State would have worked. The decision was made
    to put it in my State, and we have had some malfunctioning, in
    terms of the test--launching the test vehicles from Kwajalein.
    But we still have every confidence that the system will work.
        Senator Dorgan. I think a debate of that type would be
    meritorious for this subcommittee, as a matter of fact.

                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

        Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd is not here, Ms. Jonas, but
    he is very concerned about the status of the medical care
    facilities that are available. And he has had the good fortune
    of establishing, in West Virginia, a system to bring about a
    healthcare tool for the country at the country's leading
    military hospitals. It's Walter Reed's facility that is in West
    Virginia, called HealtheForces, and he was the one who
    initiated the cooperation between the two.
        Incidentally, I would like to talk to you about carrying
    out the commitments that were made in Alaska when we moved the
    Hospital of the Pacific to Anchorage from Clark Field. It was
    our understanding that such a facility would be established in
    Alaska, but it never has been established. And the people from
    Korea and all over the Pacific, fly all the way into the
    mainland rather than come to Alaska, which is a day short,
    really, almost, in terms of flying time, as far as people that
    need healthcare.
        But Senator Byrd's agreement between Walter Reed and
    Marshall University and the National Technology Transfer
    Center, with regard to diabetics and chronic disease sufferers,
    has been established. It is called the Byrd Center. And he has
    some--he believes this is a shining example of linking national
    healthcare advancements with local expertise to meet healthcare
    needs, a very worthwhile concept.
        How is this program progressing toward implementation in
    West Virginia now?
        Ms. Jonas. Senator, I would have to provide the details of
    that program's status for the record.
        [The information follows:]

        The Marshall's Byrd Center is currently implementing
    HEALTHeFORCES to selected facilities within West Virginia. The
    HEALTHeSURVEY module was implemented at Marshall University
    Medical Center in June 2004. HEALTHeCARD and HEALTHeNOTE
    modules were implemented in March 2005. Pre-implementation
    activities are currently underway at Tug River Health Clinic,
    McDowell County, WV.

        Ms. Jonas. I'd be happy to talk to the Army and to Dr.
    Winkenwerder about the program. I would simply say that--
    healthcare is absolutely a critical and vital area for our
    military members and their families. We'd be very happy to work
    closely with Senator Byrd and his staff to make sure that the
    program is proceeding as intended by Congress.

       EXPANDED USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE HEALTHCARE COSTS

        Senator Stevens. Well, the Senator has asked me to ask this
    specific question. Given the fact that President Bush has
    pointed to an expanded use of information technology as a
    primary way to reduce healthcare costs in America, and given
    the fact that the HealtheForces has proved to be incredibly
    cost efficient and consumer friendly, what steps will the
    Department take, in conjunction with the National Technoloogy
    Transfer Center (NTTC), to expand the use of this healthcare
    forces technology to other States? And I would invite it to
    Alaska, obviously.
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Senator. Again, I would be happy to
    provide the details of where we are with our information
    technology in the medical healthcare arena, particularly for
    those programs that you cited. I would be delighted to work
    with you and your staff, and Senator Byrd's staff, on that
    matter.
        Senator Stevens. Perhaps we will visit with some other
    representatives of the Department at a later date. I'm
    increasingly disturbed at the number of veterans in my State
    that have to fly to Seattle or Portland or San Francisco or Los
    Angeles, at their own expense, to deal with these problems of
    chronic diseases, and particularly diabetes and cancer, because
    there are no facilities in Alaska. But the people fly right
    over them that come in from Korea and from the bases in the
    Pacific--the North Pacific, I'm talking about now, rather than
    the South Pacific, going to Hawaii, obviously. But it's
    something that I would like to explore, also.
        Senator, do you have any further questions?
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of
    questions, if it's possible, that I would like to pursue, just
    briefly. It shouldn't take too long.
        Senator Stevens. I was urged to finish this by 11 o'clock.
    Why don't you take part of the time and I'll finish with the
    questions for the full committee.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to, for the record, make the point that where
    we've shot a bullet with a bullet, or a rocket with a rocket,
    is a successful program. It's the Patriot advanced capability-3
    (PAC-3). It has been very successful. Our issues are with the
    long-term things, and a lot of that's coordinating
    communication and all of that.

                            MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS

        But to move on to--I notice, in your written testimony, you
    didn't discuss any of the military space programs. And so, my
    question is, To what extent does the budget reflect the
    importance of military space programs, and particularly the
    ones--the Air Force is focused on developing a number of
    advanced satellites, including space-based radar,
    transformational communications satellites and space-based
    infrared radar system-High (SBIRS). Is there sufficient funding
    in the future year defense plan to sustain these programs?
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Senator, space is a very important
    aspect of our program. I can provide a lot of detail for the
    record, if you would like. On the SBIRS-High program, we have
    about $757 million in the program now; for the transformational
    satellite, about $836 million; for the space-based radar, about
    $226 million for that. We also have commitments to other
    programs, like the advanced extremely high frequency satellite.
    We've got about $1.2 billion in the program for that.
        So space is a fair amount of our investment, and we agree
    with the importance of space.
        [The information follows:]

        The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget request for the
    Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)-High Program is $761
    million; the request for Space Radar is $226 million; the
    request for the Transformation Satellite (TSAT) Communications
    program is $836 million; and for the Advanced Extremely High
    Frequency (AEHF) Program is $1.2 billion. There is currently
    sufficient funding in the future year defense plan to sustain
    these programs.

                BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION SAVINGS

        Senator Allard. The second issue I want to discuss briefly
    is the BRAC process that's going into effect this year. And so,
    now we're beginning to talk about the 2006 budget. And so, I
    would assume it would have a little bit of an impact on the
    2006, maybe even more on 2007. So I'm interested in what you
    anticipate might be the savings with the BRAC in the early
    years here, and then as we progress over time. And to what
    extent, with our global posture, will that reduce the size and
    scope--do you think it will occur?
        Ms. Jonas. I can certainly talk to what we have
    experienced, in terms of savings in past BRAC rounds. We
    eliminated about 21 percent of our excess capacity in past BRAC
    rounds, and got about $17 billion worth of savings, and
    recurring savings of about $7 billion annually.
        Senator Allard. What was that? How many billion?
        Ms. Jonas. Seventeen billion dollars.
        Senator Allard. Seventeen billion dollars.
        Ms. Jonas. I believe that's a General Accounting Office
    (GAO) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate on that.
    But that's what we've done.
        Senator Allard. This is with past rounds.
        Ms. Jonas. With past BRAC rounds. I cannot speak to what we
    would expect. I'm not part of the group that is considering
    BRAC issues.
        With respect to global posture, certainly the BRAC
    Commission will be informed by the global posture initiative.
    Again, I cannot speak to the details of that; I'm not involved
    in that. But certainly it will have an impact.
        Senator Allard. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me that extra time.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

                     ACHIEVING SUFFICIENT ARMOR PROTECTION

        Secretary Rumsfeld announced that we are really proceeding
    as rapidly as possible on appropriate armor for all vehicles in
    the war zone. I'm told that the Army has spent $4.1 billion on
    vehicle armoring, and this has provided armor packages for
    about 60 percent of the 35,000 tactical wheeled vehicles in the
    theater. I was further told that those that have not been up-
    armored are kept within secure bases.
        Now, the Marine Corps has spent $290 million, so far, on, I
    think, 30,000-plus Humvees. Is the funding in this request now
    sufficient to ensure that we can tell people that all vehicles
    operating outside of protected compounds will have the
    appropriate armor protection soon? And how soon?

                                 VEHICLE ARMOR

        Admiral Willard. Sir, the statement that was made by the
    Secretary during testimony was that General Casey had assured
    him that by February 15--so already past date--that, with few
    classified exceptions, no vehicles would be utilized outside
    their garrisons within Iraq without appropriate armor on them.
    So we are past that deadline date at this point, and the
    expectation is that our uniformed personnel that are
    transported around Iraq are in appropriately up-armored
    vehicles and convoys when they do it.
        Senator Stevens. Does this include helicopters? Have we
    included some additional armor on helicopters?

                             HELICOPTER PROTECTION

        Admiral Willard. Sir, the helicopters--the rotary-winged
    assets that are in theater are armored. And when we have
    referred to ``up-armor'' in the past, we're referring to up-
    armor on our wheeled vehicles, by and large; and there are up-
    armored kits, and they range from, literally, steel to
    composite-material up-armor, which is significantly lighter,
    but, nonetheless, affording some protection. So there are
    various tiers of armor, but it's generally the wheeled vehicles
    that we're talking about.
        Senator Stevens. Well, the last time I managed a bill on
    the floor, I faced substantial questions from Members about
    whether this amount was sufficient to up-armor the vehicles.
    Can you assure us the money that's in this bill will take care
    of the demands for up-armoring in the balance of this fiscal
    year?
        Ms. Jonas. Senator, we have $2.7 billion in the
    supplemental request. And, to our knowledge, that meets the
    requirement that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has, at this
    point. We've also asked for about $200 million in the baseline
    2006 budget. Just to note, up to this point we've spent about
    $5.4 billion from the funds that were provided through the $25
    billion that this subcommittee helped with, and also
    reprogrammed about $2.6 billion. So we think we're fairly well
    covered, to this point.

                    PROPOSED AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT REDUCTIONS

        Senator Stevens. All right. The 2006 budget produces the
    planned buys for both the C-130J and the F/A-22. Secretary
    Rumsfeld has testified that both reductions may be reversed.
    And the QDR that's coming out, the Quadrennial Defense Review,
    will address, specifically, the F-22, I am informed. The Air
    Force initially planned to buy 168 C-130J's and signed a
    contract to buy 62. But the 2006 budget proposes to end that
    program after buying 53 aircraft. The 2006 budget also called
    for ending production of the F/A-22 in 2008, at 179 aircraft,
    as opposed to the previously planned 268. And that was expected
    to save $10.4 billion.
        Some of us raised questions about the cancellation costs
    and whether they were adequately taken into account. I
    understand that the Department is considering a reversing
    decision by the Secretary's decision. And can you tell us--What
    should we do? Should we wait for a budget amendment, or should
    we take it on our own to try and adjust this? When will the
    decision be made?

                         AIRCRAFT PROGRAM: C-130J/F-22

        Admiral Willard. Sir, we have a number of both studies in
    play and reviews coming up that are intended to answer the
    question on the capabilities mix of both our mobility forces
    containing C-130J and our tactical forces within the scope air
    dominance that contained the F-22 capabilities. A mobility
    capability study is current ongoing, expected to read out at
    the end of March; and that mobility capability study is all
    forms of strategic mobility--air, ground, and sea--in addition
    to intra-theater lift assets, such as C-130J. And we will be
    better informed when that mobility capability study is under
    review with regard to the exact mix of aircraft that are
    required.
        One of the key factors in the C-130J decision had to do
    with Marine Corps aircraft and the intent to supply a full
    number of Marine Corps tankers from that buy. And that's one of
    the challenges that we face now with regard to the exact timing
    of, and scope of, the reduction, the savings, to ensure that
    the Marine Corps get those aircraft.
        Insofar as F-22 is concerned, the upcoming Defense review
    will study air dominance within an air control operations
    capability area. And within air dominance, a very heavily
    invested area for the Department, there are a variety of both
    tactical aircraft and other systems involved. F/A-22 is one of
    those. And within the scope of that capability area, we intend
    to determine where the F-22 fits and what mix of F-22s--what
    number of F-22s are most appropriate for the Department.

                             OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN

        Senator Stevens. We need to talk to--it's my understanding
    that some of the monies requested are not currently authorized.
    They're in the intelligence portion of the budget. And so, I
    think, Ms. Jonas, that our only alternative now is to have a
    classified hearing on that portion of the request that are
    before us. And I would hope that you would cooperate with us on
    that sometime soon.
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. I'm really very concerned about some other
    questions, but time is running on us. We, in particular, want
    to talk about modularity, in terms of the change to the
    brigade-based force. Perhaps those questions would be best
    addressed to the chiefs, when they appear before us,
    particularly the Army chief. But the Army National Guard
    problem has not been finalized. We're going to have a difficult
    time handling that money unless we understand what's going to
    be the contribution of the Guard to total force in that area.
    But I also have a question here regarding the decision to
    decommission the John F. Kennedy. I'm going to submit several
    of those questions to you, just for the record, because they're
    questions that have been suggested by other Members.
        We look forward to working with you. And I know it's a
    difficult problem.
        I think I should tell you that a number of our colleagues
    now share some of the comments we're hearing from the
    Democratic members of the committee concerning the question of,
    When will we start full budgeting for the ongoing operations,
    on the basis that what we're doing is no longer conducting a
    war, but peacekeeping operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq?
    That's going to be a difficult question for us on the floor,
    and I urge you to work with other members that are going to be,
    from the Department, coming before us, so we can be assured
    that we're all operating on the same assumptions with regard to
    this process of having budgets for the war zones be continued
    in supplementals after that basic war has been terminated. We
    still have the war on terrorism, as such, and we can understand
    the antiterrorism activities may be difficult to budget for in
    advance, but the planning for the continued assistance through
    the period of adjustment, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are
    such that many of--as I said, many members are telling me and
    members of this subcommittee that they believe we ought to see
    a normal budgeting process.
        Now, the President has submitted a 2006 budget, and that's,
    you know, an accomplished fact. I'm sure we're not going to ask
    to change that. But looking forward to 2007, I'd like to know
    what representations we can make about the practices that the
    administration will follow with regard to ongoing peacekeeping
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        I hope that you will consider that a fair question and will
    get some response from the Department before we get to the
    floor on the supplemental.
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to
    working with you on those questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
    patience.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I should tell you, there's a full-blown debate going on, on
    the floor, and there are two other subcommittees meeting at the
    same time, so there are others who may have questions to
    submit, and we will notify you if they do.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                      Questions Submitted to Tina W. Jonas
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                                   RETENTION

        Question. We are concerned about retention of our Special
    Operations forces. We understand that both the 2006 President's Budget
    and the Emergency Supplemental request include additional funding to
    support retention. What is the status of Special Forces retention and
    how is the Department addressing this issue?
        Answer. Preliminary reports from the Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM) indicate that fiscal year 2005 retention is beginning to show
    improvement with special offerings recently made available. Currently,
    the Services are preparing their first fiscal year 2005 retention
    report for submission to the personnel community within the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense with a mid-April target date. The report will
    be submitted quarterly. Additional information should be available
    after the Service reports are submitted.
        Beginning on January 1, 2005, the Department implemented a SOF
    retention package that included: Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB)
    for Enlisted personnel and Warrant Officers in designated occupational
    specialties; Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) for Enlisted personnel
    (E-4 through E-9) in SOCOM designated billets; Assignment Incentive Pay
    (AIP) for Enlisted personnel and Warrant Officers operators in SOCOM
    designated billets with more than 25 years of service; and Critical
    Skills Accession Bonus for Warrant Officers with SOF skills.

             COST OF OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM AND IRAQI FREEDOM

        Question. I understand that the Department has absorbed the cost of
    Operation Noble Eagle within the baseline budget for fiscal year 2006.
    What is the Department's plan for absorbing the cost of Operations
    Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom within the baseline budget?
        Answer. The Department included ONE costs in the baseline budget
    because these costs are no longer temporary in nature and can be
    predicted.
        Baseline DOD budgets include funds for organizing, training and
    equipping our military. They do not include costs for Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) operational
    tempo (OPTEMPO). These costs are more difficult to predict because of
    the continuing insurgency activity. Currently, we are not able to
    estimate with great certainty the troop deployment, fuel utilization,
    logistics and transportation requirements, nor the composition (Active
    vs. Reserves) of forces to be deployed. Because of these unknowns, any
    estimate prepared in time to be included in the fiscal year 2006
    President's request would have been flawed.
        Once these operations have fully stabilized and have predictable
    costs, and, if the decision is made to continue the operation on a
    long-term basis, the Department will transfer responsibility for OEF
    and OIF to the baseline budget, similar to when the funding from Balkan
    operations was transferred from the Overseas Contingency Operations
    Transfer Fund (OCOTF) to the Services accounts in fiscal year 2003.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                               CORROSION FUNDING

        Question. Last year the Government Accountability Office reported
    that corrosion costs the Department of Defense as much as $20 billion
    per year. The Services and GAO estimate the funding needed for 2006 is
    approximately $332 million for corrosion prevention projects. The GAO
    estimates the savings to investment ratio is 10 to 1, and projects with
    an 80 to 1 savings ratio are not uncommon. It would seem to me that
    programs which demonstrate a savings to investment ratio of 10 to 1
    would be the type of programs that you would want to fund. Since the
    return on investment is so great and the annual costs of corrosion so
    high, why is the Pentagon recommending not only such a small amount of
    funding this year but also an amount that is significantly less than
    what was recommended last year? Can we expect to see an increase in
    corrosion funding in the future?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2006 President's budget request, the
    Department has included approximately $15 million annually (fiscal year
    2006-fiscal year 2011) in Defense-wide accounts. The decision on how
    much to request in fiscal year 2006 was based on the need to fund
    competing priorities as we established an on-going corrosion prevention
    program.
        The Department's fiscal year 2006 request for corrosion prevention
    provides funding for projects with a projected average return on
    investment (ROI) of at least 10 to 1. We will re-examine corrosion
    prevention funding in fiscal year 2007 and beyond as we are able to
    assess the actual savings realized by our fiscal year 2005 and fiscal
    year 2006 funded projects. Thus, any future funding increase will
    depend on our ability to validate our ROI projections and realize
    projected savings while taking into account the Department's other
    funding needs. The Department believes this approach in combating the
    insidious effects of corrosion is both sound and methodical.
        The Department is taking steps to address corrosion and is taking
    corrosion seriously. All major systems are required to address
    corrosion prevention and control throughout the total life cycle of
    systems, from development through sustainment. This requirement is
    expected to result in significant long term corrosion cost avoidance.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              JOINT COMMON MISSILE

        Question. As you know, the Joint Common Missile (JCM) was
    terminated in Presidential Budget Decision 753. Eight months into Phase
    1 of System Design and Development, JCM is a remarkably healthy, low-
    risk program on schedule, on budget, and successfully demonstrating
    important new capabilities for the warfighter. Canceling the JCM
    ignores the opinion of our top military leaders and deprives our
    servicemembers of a new capability they need to survive against future
    threats. Can you explain why this program was targeted?
        Answer. The Joint Common Missile was terminated for a variety of
    reasons, including affordability, as well as demonstrated capabilities
    of current munitions such as Hellfire II, the Joint Direct Attack
    Munition, and Laser-Guided Bombs. Good alternatives for Joint Common
    Missile exist, so this is an area where the Department is able to take
    a certain amount of risk. Also, the Air Force is refurbishing Maverick
    missiles and is developing the Small Diameter Bomb Increment 2 to field
    similar capabilities as the Joint Common Missile.
        Question. Further, the JCM meets Joint Service requirements and
    fills a critical capabilities gap that cannot be met by upgrading
    existing weapon systems. For example, JCM has twice the standoff range
    of the Hellfire, Longbow, and Maverick missiles it will replace on
    Army, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. The accuracy of its tri-mode
    seeker will give our forces precision-strike lethality to eliminate
    threats that are located near non-combatants. That is why the top-
    ranking officers in all three services that have requested JCM--the
    Army, Navy, and Marine Corps--all believe the program must be restored.
    How can you justify terminating this program?
        Answer. As stated above, the Joint Common Missile was terminated
    for reasons of affordability and demonstrated performance of other
    munitions. In addition to capable weapons such as Hellfire II, Joint
    Direct Attack Munition, and Laser-Guided Bombs, the Department is
    scheduled to begin production of the Small Diameter Bomb Increment 1
    this fiscal year, which will also limit collateral damage for fixed
    target attack. A follow-on Increment 2 for Small Diameter Bomb under
    development will offer moving target attack, which will offer
    capabilities similar to the Joint Common Missile.

                         KWAJALEIN JOINT CONTROL CENTER

        Question. It is my understanding that your Department is
    considering the increased use of ``remote operations'' for the
    Kwajalein Test and Space Operations site. As I understand it, this
    would mean both a cost savings and increased efficiencies with the
    handling of sensitive data. Further, I have heard that this
    ``remoting'' will be conducted from a new ``Kwajalein Joint Control
    Center'' to be located in Huntsville, Alabama. I support this move in
    efficiency and cost savings and would ask that you provide me an update
    on the current status of this proposed project and the out-year funding
    profile necessary to support this activity.
        Answer. The Army is currently conducting an in-depth review of the
    U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS) to determine a
    means of optimizing range operations. A key cost saving recommendation
    is to remote the operation of radars and sensors from Kwajalein back to
    the United States via fiber optic connection. Some of the operations
    personnel, currently located on Kwajalein, could be moved to a remote
    operations center in the United States. With fewer personnel on
    Kwajalein the cost of supplying public works, services and
    infrastructure on the atoll could be reduced. The Army is studying the
    concept of remote operations, including a survey of possible locals in
    the United States for the remote operations center, but has not yet
    selected a location for that center.
        The Army has not yet committed to any changes in operations at
    Kwajalein. The Army has funded a marine survey to determine the
    possibility of fiber installation on the ocean floor. The total cost of
    installing fiber could be between $36 million and $55 million--
    depending upon whether or not there is Federated States of Micronesia
    and/or Marshall Island National Telephone Authority participation.
    Leasing the fiber is also under consideration, and may be more cost
    effective. The cost of standing up a remote operations center is
    estimated at $7 million.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                               ACCOUNTING REFORM

        Question. Secretary Jonas, the reform of the Pentagon's accounting
    systems is imperative to allowing the Defense Department to pass a
    thorough audit, as required by law. But funds appropriated for the
    Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) in past years have
    been under-expended, indicating that the program has slowed down from
    its rapid start.
        What specific goals or milestones do you expect the BMMP to achieve
    in fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. The program is being realigned to support tangible
    transformation efforts. Essential to this effort is delivering BEA 3.0
    and a complete, comprehensible Transition Plan by September 30, 2005.
    These deliverables will facilitate the Department's transformation
    efforts which are now focused on rapidly implementing specific Business
    Enterprise Priorities. The first priorities we are addressing are:
    Acquisition visibility; common supplier engagement; materiel
    visibility; real property visibility; financial visibility; and
    personnel visibility.
        Within each of these priorities are a set of initiatives that have
    short (6 months), mid (12 months) and long term (18+ months) impact on
    the Department's transformation efforts and will be selected based on
    its ability to deliver a needed capability or business improvement to
    the Department.
        It is true that the BMMP has under-expended in prior years.
    However, beginning in fiscal year 2005, execution is on track. As of
    June 2005, over 91 percent of Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
    (O&M, D-W) and approximately 90 percent of Research, Development, Test
    & Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&E, D-W) funds (including prior year
    funds) are obligated. The balance of funds available will be obligated
    during the fourth quarter projected to be disbursed by September 30,
    2005, with the remaining dollars disbursed in October and November
    2005.
        Question. Do you expect that the Department of Defense will
    continue to have a significant amount of unexpended funds by the end of
    the current fiscal year? When do you expect the unexpended funds that
    existed at the end of fiscal year 2004 to be fully obligated?
        Answer. The Department is projecting that approximately $251
    billion will be unexpended at the end of fiscal year 2005. Of this
    amount, approximately $205 billion (unliquidated obligations) represent
    legally binding contracts resulting in the ultimate cash payment at a
    subsequent time. The remaining $46 billion (unobligated balances)
    represent amounts which are available for approved programs but which
    are not yet obligated. These funds are committed to the programs for
    which initially appropriated but are awaiting the completion of
    contracting or other legal prerequisites of contracting before the
    funds are fully obligated.
        The unobligated balances related to multiyear appropriations at the
    end of fiscal year 2004 will be fully obligated by the end of fiscal
    year 2006 with the exception of Shipbuilding and Military Construction
    appropriations that will expire for obligational purposes at the end of
    fiscal year 2008.
        Question. What is the status of efforts to cut down on the large
    number of unnecessary charge cards in the Department of Defense? How
    many charge cards are now in circulation, and is the Department now
    carrying out credit checks to cut down on the number of cards issued to
    individuals whose credit record might indicate a high risk for charge
    card abuse?
        Answer.
    Efforts to cut down the number of cards
        For the purchase card, we have established internal controls to
    automatically shut down a card that has been inactive for 6 billing
    cycles. In addition, Program Coordinators can now run a report that
    lists cards with little or no activity.
        For the travel card, the Department entered an agreement with Bank
    of America to prevent charges against accounts that have not been used
    in a twelve month period.
        For the Fleet and Aviation Intoplane Reimbursement (AIR) cards,
    accounts that do not show activity over a 6 month period will be
    highlighted and the account will be closed unless sufficient rationale
    to keep the account open is provided.
    Number of charge cards in circulation and credit checks
        For the purchase card, the number of card holder accounts is
    approximately 112,000, which is less than half of the over 230,000
    purchase cards that were in circulation in 2001. Regarding the issue of
    credit checks, the Department's legal determination is that existing
    statutes preclude obtaining actual credit checks without the
    cardholder's consent (i.e. Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act,
    etc). If cardholders consent, the Department uses a ``Creditworthiness
    Evaluation'' to assist in determining the creditworthiness of potential
    cardholders. The Systems of Records Notice to allow credit checks
    without cardholder consent is being reviewed by GSA's Office of General
    Counsel. Once completed, bargaining with local bargaining units will be
    required, which will involve discussions with over 1,400 bargaining
    units and is expected to take a minimum of 2 years.
        For the travel card, there are approximately 975,783 open accounts,
    down from 1,370,477 in 2002. The Department has always conducted credit
    checks from the outset of the program, if an individual gave consent.
    We cannot conduct credit checks without individual consent under the
    Fair Credit Reporting Act. Individuals with a satisfactory credit score
    are issued a standard card with $5,000 limit and individuals with a
    lower score, or who decline a credit check, are issued a restricted
    card with a $2,000 limit. Since January 2004, 1,917 applications have
    been denied.
        For the Fleet and Aviation Intoplane Reimbursement (AIR) cards,
    there are 58,221 and 20,075 cards, respectively. Since the Fleet cards
    are issued to DOD owned or leased vehicles or equipment and the AIR
    cards are issued to aircraft, no credit checks are performed because
    neither card is assigned to a specific individual.

                                 HEALTHEFORCES

        Question. Thanks to a collaborative effort that I helped to
    initiate between Walter Reed, Marshall University, and the National
    Technology Transfer Center (NTTC), diabetic patients and other chronic
    disease sufferers in Southern West Virginia will be better able to
    manage their disease and enhance their quality of life. Marshall's Byrd
    Center for Rural Health has adapted the HEALTHeFORCES program and is in
    the process of launching HEALTHeWV at Marshall University Medical
    Center and other rural clinics in Southern West Virginia. The NTTC, in
    turn, will lay the groundwork for the program's implementation at other
    sites in the State and nation. HEALTHeWV is a shining example of
    linking national health care advancements with local expertise to meet
    West Virginia's unmet health care needs.
        Secretary Jonas, how is this program progressing toward
    implementation in West Virginia?
        Answer. The Marshall's Byrd Center is currently implementing
    HEALTHeFORCES to selected facilities within West Virginia. The
    HEALTHeSURVEY module was implemented at Marshall University Medical
    Center in June 2004. HEALTHeCARD and HEALTHeNOTE modules were
    implemented in March 2005. Pre-implementation activities are currently
    underway at Tug River Health Clinic, McDowell County, WV.
        Question. Given the fact that President Bush has pointed to an
    expanded use of information technology as a primary way to reduce
    health care costs in America, and given the fact that HEALTHeFORCES has
    proved to be incredibly cost-efficient and consumer-friendly, what
    steps will the Department take in conjunction with the NTTC to expand
    the use of HEALTHeFORCES technology in other states?
        Answer. The Army has delivered a functioning HEALTHeFORCES
    technology to the National Technology Transfer Center for further
    expansion as appropriate.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Admiral Robert F. Willard
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                               REDUCTION IN FORCE

        Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget requests funding to
    decommission the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. How will this reduction in
    force affect readiness and our overseas military presence?
        Answer. The Fleet Response Plan enables the Navy today to surge
    multiple carriers on demand. Under the 6+2 plan, 6 carriers are
    available within 30 days to meet commitments and another 2 will be
    available within 90 days. A force reduction of one carrier may alter
    the availability to either 6+1 or 5+2, depending on scheduling factors.
    However, a fleet of 11 carriers will maintain readiness standards to
    source the most demanding defense scenarios within acceptable risk
    guidelines. Additionally, the reduction from 12 to 11 carriers aligns
    with the currently available 11 Carrier Air Wings.
        A primary contribution of carriers to the defense strategy is
    deterrence through global presence. The Navy will continue to maintain
    the required carrier presence. Innovative global force management
    practices will enable joint solutions, such as Air Force aircraft in a
    forward region, to augment or substitute for carrier presence to meet
    Combatant Commander needs. Overseas presence and deterrence is further
    bolstered by an increase in rotational expeditionary forces from all
    Services under the global presence and basing strategy.
        In summary, the Department of Defense must make difficult force
    structure trades under a constrained budget to meet current and
    emerging challenges. The Department of Defense and the Navy are
    undergoing aggressive transformation while still executing phase IV
    operations in Operations IRAQI and ENDURING FREEDOM. The future 11-
    carrier fleet enabled by the Fleet Response Plan, technological
    advances, improved training, and superior maintenance will provide the
    capability required to successfully execute the defense strategy.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Question. I understand that a key aspect of the Department's
    missile defense strategy is to pursue a layered defensive system,
    designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles of all ranges,
    during any phase of their flight. The recent successful test of an
    operationally configured Standard Missile 3 from a Navy Aegis cruiser
    is an indication of the potential for one part of the layered system.
    Could you share with this committee your assessment of the missile
    defense effort, and how this budget proposal might affect the
    Department's ability to achieve the layered system that is envisioned?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) continues to develop and
    incrementally field a joint, integrated and multi-layered defense--the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)--against all ranges of
    ballistic missiles. Layered defenses are important because they provide
    defense in depth across all phases of flight (boost, midcourse and
    terminal) and make deployment of enemy countermeasures more difficult.
    The recent success of the Standard Missile 3 test from an Aegis cruiser
    adds confidence to our ability to address the short- to intermediate-
    range ballistic missile threats. Development of other capabilities
    continues to address the entire capability range of the threats.
        The MDA has followed a funding strategy of retaining alternative
    development paths until a capability is proven. The fiscal year 2006
    budget proposal supports the development for fielding of various BMDS
    elements and components, including the: Ground-based Midcourse Defense
    (GMD), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Airborne Laser
    (ABL), Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), improved sensors, and battle
    management. All of these elements of the BMDS, and other efforts, will
    combine to achieve a robust, layered defense.
        The warfighter's assess that MDA has a balanced approach to
    developing and fielding capabilities that take into account the
    evolving threats. The fiscal year 2006 missile defense budget proposal
    supports the funding strategy by focusing resources on the most
    promising development paths to create a multi-layered defense to
    protect the homeland, deployed forces, friends, and allies against
    ballistic missile attack.
        Question. The budget proposal truncates the C-130J program after
    fiscal year 2006, leaving both the Air Force and Marine Corps short of
    their modernization objectives. From the joint perspective, how will
    this proposal affect the Defense Department's air transport and
    refueling capabilities?
        Answer. At the time the decision was made to truncate the C-130J
    program, recent studies indicated that the current tactical airlift
    fleet could support the military strategy. Additionally, there was an
    incomplete understanding of the associated contract termination
    liabilities. However, with the recent flight restrictions placed on
    portions of the C-130 fleet and better understanding of the contracting
    implications, the Department of Defense has recently stated a
    willingness to re-evaluate the C-130 capability required and the
    decision to truncate the C-130J program.
        The Mobility Capability Study (MCS) and the Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR) will address the transport and refueling requirements for
    the Department. These studies will also help determine the quantity and
    right mix of transports and cargo aircraft required for the joint
    force. The MCS should be ready for release in the spring of 2005 and
    the QDR should be completed by February 2006.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Admiral Willard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

                                           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, Hutchison, Burns,
    Inouye, Leahy, Durbin, and Mikulski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS HARVEY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
    ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General.
    We're going to receive testimony from the Secretary of the
    Army, the Army Chief of Staff. Secretary Harvey, we welcome
    you. It's your first appearance before our subcommittee, and we
    look forward to working with you during these challenging
    times. They're difficult for all of us, but we're anxious to
    hear your plans for sustaining the force.
        I want to welcome some soldiers attending today, Sergeant
    First Class Jason Straight, of the Army Reserve, Operations
    Sergeant for the 459th Engineering Company, Staff Sergeant
    Clarke Caporale, Army National Guard from New York, Information
    Assurance Manager, at the Joint Forces Headquarters in New
    York, and Sergeant--Staff Sergeant Thomas Kenny, the Active
    Component Rifle Squad Leader of the 2nd Platoon of the 502nd
    Infantry of the 101st Airborne. I'm sorry to have botched up
    those introductions, gentlemen.
        We welcome you all, and we're honored to have you here with
    us, and we thank you for your service, as we thank all of you
    for your service.
        General Schoomaker, we welcome you to the subcommittee and
    look forward to your testimony. We will later welcome Senator
    Mikulski, who is a new member of our subcommittee and will be
    very valuable to us as we go forward.
        This initiative known as ``modularity'' is designed to
    reduce stress on the force by creating more deployable units
    and to ensure our soldiers are properly equipped when they
    rotate into theater operations. It's an ambitious endeavor,
    General and Mr. Secretary, that we must balance with many other
    budgetary challenges facing the Army and the whole Department.
    These include recruiting and retaining an all-volunteer force,
    improving the protection systems, recapitalization of damage to
    destroyed equipment, and reposturing our forces around the
    globe. In addition to that, we are fielding new technologies
    for the warfighter.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget proposal totals $98.6 billion
    for the Army, and the supplemental request before us--that and
    the supplemental request before us are critical for addressing
    these issues. It's imperative we exercise due diligence in
    reviewing the requests, and we want to work with you to ensure
    that our Army is provided the resources necessary to accomplish
    its mission and to continue the momentum toward the
    democratization of the Middle East.
        I want to turn this over now to my co-chairman and see if
    he has comments before we ask you to prepare--to give us your
    remarks.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish
    to join you in welcoming General Schoomaker and Dr. Harvey, our
    new Secretary of the Army.
        The Army is now undergoing a period of challenge and
    change, and the pace of overseas operations is clearly
    straining our Active, Guard, and Reserve forces. And we know
    that it's not going to be an easy job, but we stand to work
    with you, sir.
        And may I have my full statement made part of the record?
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir, it will be.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Today we welcome the Army Chief of Staff, General
    Schoomaker, along with Dr. Francis Harvey, the Army Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, we welcome you here for your first appearance
    before this committee.
        Gentlemen, the Army is undergoing a period of challenge and
    great change. The pace of overseas operations is clearly
    straining our Active, Guard and Reserve forces.
        At the same time, we are implementing the first phase of
    Army transformation with the creation of Stryker brigades. And,
    to complicate matters further, the Army is proceeding with its
    modularity initiative, restructuring its divisions with a goal
    of increasing combat capability by creating an additional 10
    brigade combat teams.
        The cost of these efforts, both in stress and monetary
    resources, is understandably high.
        We are informed that the Army was unable to meet its
    recruiting goal for active duty soldiers last month and also
    falling short of the recruiting goals of the Reserve forces.
        In this period of change we have seen the termination of
    the Comanche helicopter and the Crusader, and the restructuring
    of the future combat system program and Army aviation.
        The Congress has fully supported the Army even adding more
    than $600 million in fiscal year 2005 to accelerate equipment
    for the Stryker brigades, but more is required.
        In the supplemental request, we find an unprecedented
    request of $5 billion to support modularity, and the creation
    of brigade combat teams. Some of our colleagues have questioned
    the propriety of using an emergency supplemental to pay for
    this new initiative.
        So, I believe it is obvious that this is a period of great
    upheaval. Gentlemen, I don't know how you are able to balance
    all of these issues in this time of war. I tip my hat to you.
        As you know, this committee has been steadfast in its
    support of the Army. I can assure you that we will do our best
    to support the needs of our men and women in uniform especially
    during this trying time.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing our witnesses discuss
    the many challenges facing the Army and their plans to meet
    them head on.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy, do you have any opening
    comments?
        Senator Leahy. I don't, Mr. Chairman. I will have
    questions, though.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, we're pleased to have your statement. Both
    of your statements will appear in the record in full, as though
    read, but we'd take your comments, whatever you wish to say.
        Secretary Harvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, General Schoomaker and I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here this morning and to offer testimony on
    the posture of the United States Army, which today is
    conducting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and some 120 other
    countries around the world.
        Let me begin by saying a few words about the great soldiers
    of our Army, the centerpiece of our formations.
        Our Nation is blessed with the world's finest Army, an all-
    volunteer force representing the best our country has to offer.
    On that note, General Schoomaker and I are pleased to be joined
    today by three soldiers who, in turn, represent the over 1
    million soldiers in our Army. The Chief will introduce these
    soldiers to you at the end of my opening statement.
        The events of 9/11 radically altered the realities of
    America's security environment, making it clear that the United
    States is in a protracted war against a global enemy that
    fights with different means and standards of conduct that
    includes a total disregard for human life. To be successful in
    this protracted conflict, we must transform our Army to be more
    expeditionary, joint, rapidly deployable and adaptive, as well
    as enhance our capabilities across the entire range of military
    operations, from major combat to stability.
        To accomplish our mission of providing the necessary forces
    and capabilities to the combatant commanders in support of the
    national security and defense strategies, we have developed and
    are executing four overarching and interrelated strategies
    supported by 20 initiatives. Transformation is ingrained in all
    of these strategies, as well as in each one of the initiatives.
        These strategies are: first, providing relevant and ready
    land power to the combatant commanders; second, training and
    equipping our soldiers to serve as warriors and growing
    adaptive leaders; third, attaining a quality of life for our
    soldiers and their families that match the quality of their
    service; and, finally, providing the infrastructure to enable
    the force to fulfill its strategic roles and missions.
        We are implementing these strategies by means of 20
    supporting initiatives. In executing these initiatives, our
    actions will, at all times and in all places, be guided by the
    highest of ethical standards. Among the nine initiatives
    supporting our strategy of providing relevant and ready land
    power, I want to emphasize our major transformational effort,
    the Army modular force initiative.
        This initiative involves the total redesign of the
    operational Army into a larger, more powerful, more flexible,
    and more rapidly deployable force that will move us from a
    division-centric structure to one built around what we call the
    Brigade Combat Team Unit of Action.
        Let me note here that when discussing the size and power of
    the Army, one should not only talk about end strength, because
    the Brigade Combat Team is a much more capable and powerful
    unit. It is more useful to talk about the number of units, as
    well as the power--combat power of those individual units.
        The combat power of an individual unit is not only a
    function of people strength, but also the technology and
    quality of the equipment, particularly the weapons systems and
    the information network, the effectiveness of the tactics,
    techniques, and procedures, the adaptability and flexibility of
    the organization, the level of training, and, finally, the
    caliber and quality of the leadership. At the end of the day,
    it is the combat power of the operational Army that counts.
        There is another important point to be made regarding Army
    end strength. Because we are initiating a number of initiatives
    to transform the way the Army does business, including the
    conversion of military jobs to civilian ones in that part of
    the Army which generates the force, the so-called
    ``institutional Army,'' it is possible to increase personnel
    strength of the operational Army without necessarily increasing
    overall end strength.
        Now, returning to the Army modular force initiative, the
    Brigade Combat Team Unit of Action is a standalone, self-
    sufficient, and standardized tactical force of between 3,500
    and 4,000 soldiers that is organized the way it fights.
    Consequently, these brigades are more strategically responsive
    across the broad spectrum of operations required by the 21st
    century security environment.
        This transformational effort will result in a force with a
    number of key advantages. First, there will be at least a 30-
    percent increase in our Active component's combat power by
    2007, an increase from 33 to 43 Brigade Combat Teams. Second,
    the number of usable Brigade Combat Teams in the rotational
    pool will increase from 48 to 77. Third, the headquarters will
    be joint-capable and organized the way it will operate in
    theater. Fourth, future network-centric developments can be
    readily applied to the modular force design as the first step
    in evolving the Brigade Combat Team Unit of Action into a
    future combat system design. Finally, and very importantly,
    when complete, modularity in combination with rebalancing the
    type of units in both the Active and Reserve components will
    significantly reduce the stress on the force because of a more
    predictable rotational cycle for all components, coupled with
    much longer dwell times at home base.
        With our four overarching strategies and 20 supporting
    initiatives, in conjunction with a fully funded base budget and
    supplemental, the Chief and I are confident that the Army can
    accomplish its mission and reach our strategic goal of being
    relevant and ready both today and tomorrow.
        Let me end by saying that none of this would be possible
    without the continuing strong support of Congress and,
    specifically, the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee. Thank you for this past support. And
    I ask for your full support on the base budget request, as well
    as the supplemental.
        General Schoomaker will now introduce the three soldiers
    with us today. And, after that, we'll be more than happy to
    answer the questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. You can tell us more about them if you'd
    like, General.
        General Schoomaker. Sure, I'd like to.
        Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye and other distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I stand with Secretary Harvey on
    his statement, and we've submitted our posture statement and
    written statements for the record, as you've said.
        I would like to introduce these three soldiers. They've
    earned the right to sit in the front row and observe how our
    Government works. And we're very proud of them. As we've
    already said, they're the centerpiece of our Army. And I
    invited them here so they could have that front-row seat, they
    represent all three components, the Active, Guard, and Reserve
    components of our Army.
        The first is Sergeant First Class Jason Straight, who is
    from the United States (U.S.) Army Reserve. He deployed with
    his unit from West Virginia. He deployed with the Bridge
    Company from January 2003 to February 2004. He was first
    attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, and they are
    the ones that forged the river--the Tigris River to allow the
    marines to advance. They did it under fire, put the bridge in
    so that they could proceed in their attack to Baghdad. In
    addition to bridge construction, his unit was involved in the
    destruction of enemy ammunition, doing mine clearance
    activities and destroying other foreign ammunition that was
    over there. So we're very proud of him. And he represents the
    great soldiers of our U.S. Army Reserve. Thank you very much,
    Sergeant Straight.
        The next soldier I'd like to introduce is Staff Sergeant
    Clarke Caporale. Sergeant Caporale is from New York. He's a
    member of the National Guard. He's a mortarman. And during his
    time deployed on Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) from February
    2004 to January 2005, he was involved in firing over 150
    missions in combat with his mortar element. He was also one of
    the soldiers that became a primary trainer for the Iraqi
    National Guard and was involved in training Company D of the
    203rd Battalion Iraqi National Guard. He was a member of the
    joint coordination cell and the staff in the province there
    where he was. He earned a Combat Infantryman's Badge and the
    Expeditionary Medal for the Global War on Terrorism. Thank you.
        Staff Sergeant Thomas Kenny is a member of the regular
    Army. He is 11-Bravo Rifle Squad Leader, Infantry, 2nd
    Battalion, 502 Infantry of the 101st Airborne. Staff Sergeant
    Kenny participated in the initial assaults through Iraq, moving
    north through Karbala, Baghdad, Fallujah, and Mosul, beginning
    in March 2003 through February 2004. His unit established
    numerous hard sites that are still in use today in Mosul. He
    was also involved in overseeing the exchange of the Hussein-era
    Iraqi dinars to the post-liberation dollars. He also has earned
    the Combat Infantryman's Badge, been decorated for both the
    campaign in Iraq, as well as in Kosovo, where he was involved
    in the campaign there.
        So, again, we're very proud of these soldiers. They
    represent the centerpiece of our Army, and I join you in my
    great respect for their service and what they contribute to the
    security of our Nation.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So thank you very much. I'm prepared to answer your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Honorable Francis J. Harvey and General Peter
                                 J. Schoomaker
                                                      February 6, 2005.

        America remains a nation at war, fighting adversaries who threaten
    our civilization and way of life. The most significant aspect of our
    current strategic reality is that the Global War on Terror in which we
    are now engaged will be a protracted one.
        The Army's primary mission is to provide necessary forces and
    capabilities to the Combatant Commanders in support of the National
    Security and Defense Strategies. We have more than 300,000 Soldiers
    deployed or forward stationed today to support operations in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and other theaters of war and to deter aggression, while
    securing the homeland. We are fighting today while simultaneously
    preparing for tomorrow.
        To continue to accomplish our mission, we are aggressively
    restructuring the Army. We are transforming from a force designed for
    contingency operations in the post-Cold War era to a force designed for
    continuous operations in a new era that presents challenges to the
    Nation ranging from traditional to potentially catastrophic.
        The Army is dependent upon the resources requested in the fiscal
    year 2006 President's Budget, coupled with emergency supplemental
    appropriations, to support current operations. These funds will also
    enable the force to recover from the stress placed on equipment and
    Soldiers during combat and continually ``reset'' itself for future
    deployments. Moreover, these resources are required to continue to
    transform the Army into a larger, more powerful force built on self-
    sufficient brigade-based modules. This force will be more flexible,
    more rapidly deployable and better able to sustain the protracted
    military campaigns and conduct the joint, expeditionary operations
    required by the 21st century security environment.
        We are sustaining our global commitments while making tremendous
    progress in our transformation. We will need the continued support of
    the Congress, the President, and the American people to accomplish our
    mission today and tomorrow, while providing for the well-being of our
    All-Volunteer Soldiers, their families and our civilian workforce who
    are serving the Nation in this time of war.

                                           Peter J. Schoomaker,
                            General, United States Army Chief of Staff.
                                             Francis J. Harvey,
                                                 Secretary of the Army.

               PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE POSTURE STATEMENT

        The 2005 Army Posture Statement provides an overview of today's
    Army. Focusing on the Soldier, our centerpiece, it provides a
    perspective on the 21st century security environment. This environment
    provides the context for reaffirming our overarching Strategic Goal and
    our enduring Mission. The Posture Statement describes how the Army is
    executing four overarching, interrelated strategies--centered on
    people, forces, quality of life and infrastructure--needed to
    accomplish this Mission. Our initiatives, posture, progress, and
    requirements are explained within the context of these strategies. Army
    transformation is described not as an end in itself, but rather in
    terms of how it is already contributing to accomplishing the Mission
    today, while preparing the force to accomplish its Strategic Goal--to
    remain relevant and ready to meet the Combatant Commanders' needs--
    today and tomorrow. A discussion of Risk and an examination of future
    security challenges are furnished to complete this assessment of our
    current posture as we continue to serve the Nation today, while
    preparing for the uncertainties of tomorrow.

                 2005 ARMY POSTURE STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    21st Century Security Environment: An Era of Uncertainty and
            Unpredictability
        Operating within an uncertain, unpredictable environment, the Army
    must be prepared to sustain operations during a period of persistent
    conflict--a blurring of familiar distinctions between war and peace.
        To improve our ability to provide forces and capabilities to the
    Combatant Commanders for the foreseeable future, the Army is undergoing
    its most profound restructuring in more than 50 years.
        With the support of the Congress, the President, and the Department
    of Defense, we are making tremendous progress.
    Transforming to Accomplish the Mission: Modularity, Rebalancing, and
            Stabilization
        Army Transformation is focused to improve the capability of the
    Soldier, who remains the centerpiece of our formations. It has four
    primary goals.
      --First, we are restructuring from a division-based to a brigade-
            based force. These brigades are designed as modules, or self-
            sufficient and standardized Brigade Combat Teams, that can be
            more readily deployed and combined with other Army and joint
            forces to meet the precise needs of the Combatant Commanders.
            The result of this transformational initiative will be an
            operational Army that is larger and more powerful, flexible and
            rapidly deployable.
      --This program, which we call modularity, will increase the combat
            power of the Active Component by 30 percent as well as the size
            of the Army's overall pool of available forces by 60 percent.
            The total number of available brigades will increase from 48 to
            77 with 10 active brigades (three-and-a-third divisions in our
            old terms) being added by the end of 2006. Our goal for this
            larger pool of available forces is to enable the Army to
            generate forces in a rotational manner that will support two
            years at home following each deployed year for active forces,
            four years at home following each deployed year for the Army
            Reserve and five years at home following each deployed year for
            National Guard forces. Implementing this program will provide
            more time to train, predictable deployment schedules, and the
            continuous supply of landpower required by the Combatant
            Commanders and civil authorities.
      --The force, above the brigade level, will be supported by similarly
            modular supporting brigades that provide aviation, fires,
            logistics, and other support. Our headquarters structure will
            also become far more versatile and efficient as we eliminate an
            entire echelon of command--moving from three to two levels.
            Similar innovations will occur in the logistics and
            intelligence organizations that support our forces and other
            Services.
      --Our restructuring is already well underway. The 3rd Infantry
            Division, the vanguard of the invasion of Iraq, will return to
            Iraq as a restructured, modular force.
      --Second, we are rebalancing our active and reserve forces to produce
            more units with the skills in highest demand. This will realign
            the specialties of more than 100,000 Soldiers, producing a 50
            percent increase in infantry capabilities, with similar
            increases in military police, civil affairs, intelligence, and
            other critical skills. We have already converted more than
            34,000 spaces.
      --Third, Soldiers are being stabilized within units for longer
            periods to increase combat readiness and cohesion, reduce
            turnover and eliminate many repetitive training requirements.
            With fewer Soldiers and families moving, more Soldiers will be
            available on any given day to train or to fight. This
            initiative, started in 2004, also transitions our Army from an
            individual replacement manning system to a unit focused
            system--to prepare Soldiers to go to war as vital members of
            cohesive units.
      --Fourth, we are working to complement our operational transformation
            by ensuring that our business, force generation and training
            functions improve how we support a wartime Army and the other
            Services. We are divesting functions no longer relevant and
            reengineering business processes to increase responsiveness to
            the Combatant Commanders. Other improvements include developing
            a joint, interdependent end-to-end logistics structure, and
            fostering a culture of innovation to increase institutional
            agility. We seek to improve effectiveness and identify
            efficiencies that will free human and financial resources to
            better support operational requirements.
    Balancing Risk: The Tension Between Current and Future Demands
        The Army is grateful for the support of the Congress, the
    President, the Department of Defense, and the American people as we
    fight the Global War on Terror. Continued support--financial and
    moral--is vital. This year, like previous years since September 11, the
    Army's base budget supports force generation and sustainment operations
    and the supplemental budget request supports wartime efforts. The
    combination of these spending measures is needed to enable the Army to:
      --Recruit and retain the All-Volunteer Force and their families by
            enabling the establishment of equitable rotation plans and
            improving quality-of-life programs;
      --Generate and sustain a force that is properly manned, trained and
            led, in order to prevail in the Global War on Terror, while
            sustaining other global commitments;
      --Enhance Soldiers' ability to fight by rapidly spiraling promising
            technologies that are ready now into the Current Force; and
      --Reset the force by repairing and recapitalizing equipment that is
            aging rapidly--far faster than projected--due to sustained
            combat operations in severe environmental conditions.
        The scale and the pace of Army transformation is essential to
    improve the ability of American Soldiers to defeat adversaries who will
    pose complex, irregular challenges that are becoming increasingly more
    sophisticated and dangerous than those we now face.
    Focusing Resources on Wartime Requirements: Major Decisions in 2004
        The Army benefited from three major decisions in 2004, all
    providing resources to address immediate wartime needs. The Army
    restructured or adjusted 126 programs. Two of these programs had the
    most significant impact. First, the Army cancelled the Comanche Program
    and reinvested the savings into other urgent aviation requirements.
    This decision enabled us to begin purchasing new airframes, fix many
    equipment shortfalls, enhance survivability, and begin modernizing our
    fleet. Second, we modified the schedule for fielding Future Combat
    Systems to put better capabilities into the hands of our fighting
    Soldiers. Third, Congress provided the authority to increase Active
    Component end strength by 30,000 Soldiers to support the war and the
    Army's conversion to modular formations.
    Our Army at War--Relevant and Ready . . . Today and Tomorrow
        Our Nation remains at war. Soldiers understand their mission. They
    are well equipped and trained for the fight. They are well led by
    excellent leaders. Our transformation is already enhancing our
    capabilities today, while ensuring our preparedness for tomorrow. These
    efforts, however, will require full support of the base budget and
    supplemental.

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

        We remain an Army at War. It is a war unlike any other in our
    Nation's history, prosecuted not by states, but by extremists employing
    irregular means to erode our power and resolve. Our adversaries
    threaten the ideas that form the bedrock of our society, endangering
    our freedoms and way of life. Fueled by an ideology that promotes
    intractable hatred, this war will endure in some form for the
    foreseeable future. The Army, in service to the Nation, must therefore
    be prepared to sustain operations during a period of persistent
    conflict--a blurring of familiar distinctions between war and peace.
    This is the most significant aspect of the 21st century security
    environment.
        The emergence of unconventional and asymmetric threats, such as
    radical Islamic terrorist efforts aimed at the United States and other
    developed countries, has stretched the U.S. military. Protection
    afforded by geographic distance has decreased, while challenges and
    threats from extremists using weapons of mass destruction and attacks
    on civilian, military and economic targets have increased. While the
    current trend toward regional and global integration may render inter-
    state war less likely, the stability and legitimacy of the conventional
    political order in regions vital to the United States are increasingly
    under pressure.

                                    Figure 1

        There are now new actors, methods and capabilities that imperil the
    United States, its interests and its alliances in strategically
    significant ways. The Defense Strategy has identified four types of
    emerging security challenges for U.S. forces: irregular, traditional,
    catastrophic and disruptive. The ``Four Challenges,'' described in
    Figure 1, categorize many of the issues expected in the future security
    environment. In many situations, these challenges may overlap, may
    occur simultaneously and may offer no easily discernible transition
    from one to another.
        The Defense Strategy still recognizes the traditional threat
    paradigm, focused primarily on other states and known enemies. In the
    aftermath of September 11, 2001, however, it is no longer sufficient to
    be prepared to defend only against this type of threat. Our old
    concepts of security, deterrence and warning, developed through
    traditional intelligence approaches, do not apply sufficiently in this
    new strategic environment. While we must remain ready to sustain the
    full range of our global commitments, our overwhelming military
    superiority no longer serves as an adequate deterrent against many
    emerging threats, especially those of radical fundamentalist
    terrorists.
        The implications of our environment are clear. We must understand
    the character of the irregular warfare we now face and adapt
    accordingly. In waging this war against determined adversaries, we have
    arrayed a vast, hierarchical organization against an elusive, adaptive
    network. Consequently, the Army is adapting to eliminate irrelevant
    policies, processes and doctrines. We must move beyond marginal
    improvements in our efforts to strengthen interdependencies with other
    Services and other agencies and reinforce a culture that fosters
    innovation and agility.
        To respond to the challenges presented in this era of uncertainty
    and unpredictability, the Army has accelerated its transformation.
    During times of peace, change is generally slow and deliberate--at a
    pace supported by limited resources. In wartime, however, change must
    occur faster; a measured approach to change will not work.
        We must remain ready to sustain the full range of our global
    commitments beyond those associated with the Global War on Terror. At
    the same time, the Army must be prepared to conduct sustained
    operations during a period of protracted conflict.

     STRATEGIC GOAL: REMAINING RELEVANT AND READY . . . TODAY AND TOMORROW

        In light of the uncertainty and the challenges inherent to the 21st
    century security environment, the Army's overarching strategic goal is
    to remain relevant and ready by providing the Joint Force with
    essential capabilities to dominate across the full range of military
    operations. The Army will be:
      --Relevant to the challenges posed by the global security environment
            as evidenced by the organization and training of our forces,
            the innovation and adaptability of our leaders and the design
            and practices of our institutional support structures.
      --Ready to provide the Combatant Commanders with the capabilities--
            principally well-led, trained and equipped forces--required to
            achieve operational objectives across the range of military
            operations.
        To meet this goal, the Army must position itself in terms of
    mindset, capability, effectiveness, efficiency, training, education,
    leadership and the overall culture of the Service for the context in
    which it will operate for the foreseeable future.
        The American Soldier remains our primary focus--the centerpiece of
    all that we do as an Army. Throughout our history, Soldiers have
    answered the call to end tyranny, to free the oppressed and to light
    the path to democracy for struggling nations. Soldiers--imbued with the
    ideals of the Warrior Ethos, a commitment to defend the freedoms that
    America enjoys and an unwavering belief that they will be victorious--
    are, and will remain, the foundation of the Army.
        mission: supporting the national security and defense strategies
        The Army exists to serve the American people, to protect enduring
    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 charged to provide forces able to
    conduct prompt, sustained combat on land as well as stability and
    reconstruction operations, when required. Moreover, the Army is charged
    to provide logistical and other capabilities to enable other Services
    to accomplish their missions.
        To achieve its mission, the Army is providing the Joint Force with
    capabilities required to prevail in the protracted Global War on Terror
    and sustain the full range of its global commitments. At the same time,
    the Army is undergoing one of its most profound transformations since
    World War II. Army Transformation will meet the needs of Joint Force
    Commanders today and tomorrow, by providing a campaign-quality Army
    with joint and expeditionary capabilities. A continuous cycle of
    innovation and experimentation, informed by experience, is improving
    the forces and capabilities we are providing today and ensuring that we
    are well postured for tomorrow's challenges.
        We are working to create a unique synergy from both of our tasks,
    fighting today while transforming for tomorrow, to ensure we ``get it
    right.'' The size and mix of our components and capabilities must be in
    balance. Our global posture, both at home and abroad, must enhance
    agility and readiness to conduct expeditionary operations on short
    notice. In addition, the force must be designed, equipped, sustained
    and supported in a manner that will enable us to continue to be
    effective partners, with the other Services and the armed forces of
    other nations, in the conduct of sustained, protracted military
    campaigns.
        Soldiers remain at the center of our transformation focus. Soldiers
    are the Army. It is the Soldier--fierce, well trained, well equipped
    and well led--who serves as the ultimate expression of the capabilities
    the Army provides to the Joint Force and to the Nation. As always, we
    remain dedicated to the well-being of our Soldiers, their families and
    our civilian workforce.
        The character and skill of our Soldiers, leaders and civilian
    workforce and the attitudes and actions of our family must reflect our
    military and organizational challenges. Like any large, complex
    organization committed to achieving transformational change, our
    efforts to change our culture will prove to be our true measure of
    success.
        Guided by the compelling requirement to accomplish our mission in
    service to the Nation, the Army is changing now--and making tremendous
    progress. With the continued support of Congress and the Department of
    Defense, we will maintain the momentum we have established, through our
    collective efforts, to transform capabilities, processes, leadership
    and culture.

         ACCOMPLISHING THE MISSION TODAY: SUSTAINING GLOBAL COMMITMENTS

        The Army's first priority is to sustain its increasing global
    commitments that extend across the full range of military missions,
    well beyond those associated with the Global War on Terror. Today, our
    Current Force is engaged, across the range of military operations, in
    ways we could never have forecasted before September 11, 2001,
    operating at a very high pace that will likely continue for some time.

        The Army is providing forces and capabilities for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, for Operation Enduring Freedom and for other global
    requirements. The Army continues to deter aggression and keep peace on
    the Korean Peninsula, on the Sinai Peninsula, in the Balkans and
    elsewhere around the world. In addition, the Army supports numerous
    humanitarian assistance missions and supports organizations such as
    Joint Task Force Bravo in Central America to counter illicit narcotics
    trafficking.
        Today, approximately 640,000 Soldiers are serving on active duty.
    315,000 Soldiers are deployed or forward stationed in more than 120
    countries to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters
    of war and deter aggression, while securing the homeland. These
    Soldiers are from all components: Active (155,000), Army National Guard
    (113,000) and Army Reserve (47,000). Soldiers participate in homeland
    security activities and support civil authorities for many different
    missions within the United States. A large Army civilian workforce
    (over 250,000), reinforced by contractors, supports our Army--to
    mobilize, deploy and sustain the operational forces--both at home and
    abroad.
        Soldiers from the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are
    making a vital contribution. 150,000 Soldiers are mobilized and
    performing a diverse range of missions worldwide. In addition to their
    duties overseas, Soldiers from both the Guard and the Reserve supported
    civil authorities during disaster relief operations, such as those
    which occurred in Florida following four major hurricanes.
        On any given day, the Army National Guard has more than 10,000
    Soldiers on duty to protect key assets across the Nation, including Air
    Force bases. More than 24,000 Soldiers provided security for both the
    Democratic and Republican National Conventions and the Group of Eight
    Summit. National Guard Soldiers are also promoting stability in Iraq
    and in the Balkans, while performing complex, vital tasks such as U.S.
    Northern Command's ballistic missile defense mission. Guard Soldiers,
    operating in an unprecedented role, are organizing and training a
    multicomponent brigade in Colorado and a battalion in Alaska to execute
    the newly assigned mission.
        The Army Reserve, in addition to providing vital support for
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is providing a wide range of
    response capabilities in the event of an attack on the homeland. This
    support includes almost 200 emergency preparedness liaison officers
    that interact with local communities. The Reserve has also fielded and
    trained 75 chemical decontamination platoons with more than 2,400
    Soldiers for mass casualty operations and more than 250 fully equipped
    hazardous material technicians to train with local first responders.

        ENABLING MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT: FOUR OVERARCHING, INTERRELATED
                                   STRATEGIES

        To enable mission accomplishment, the Army is executing four
    overarching, interrelated strategies. These strategies seek to
    accomplish the Army's mission, consistent with the requirements
    prescribed by the National Security and Defense Strategies. These
    strategies are enabling the Army to continue to accomplish its mission
    today--in service to the Nation--while building and maintaining the
    capabilities to ensure the Army remains relevant and ready to the needs
    of the Combatant Commanders tomorrow. The Army is:
      --Providing Relevant and Ready Landpower in support of the Combat
            Commanders and the Joint Force to sustain the full range of our
            global commitments;
      --Training and Equipping our Soldiers to Serve as Warriors and
            Growing Adaptive Leaders who are highly competent, flexible and
            able to deal with the 21st century challenges they now
            confront;
      --Attaining a Quality of Life and Well-Being for Our People that
            match the quality of the service they provide; and
      --Providing Infrastructure to Enable the Force to Fulfill its
            Strategic Roles by establishing and maintaining the
            infrastructure and the information network required to develop,
            to generate, to train and to sustain the force.
        These interrelated strategies serve to unify our collective
    efforts. Relevant, Ready Landpower depends on Soldiers who are well
    trained, equipped and led. Soldiers must be supported by high Standards
    for Quality of Life and modern infrastructure to Enable the Force to
    Fulfill its Strategic Roles and Missions.
        The Army's current posture, initiatives and progress are described
    within the context of these interrelated strategies. The initiatives
    demonstrate how the strategies are being executed and, in a broader
    sense, the resources required to execute them. Transformation is the
    central thread which runs through each of these strategies.
        Army transformation represents much more than improvements in
    equipment or warfighting methods. It is a multidimensional,
    interdependent process that involves:
      --Adapting new technologies and business operations;
      --Improving joint warfighting concepts and business processes;
      --Changing organizational structures; and
      --Developing leaders, people and culture that reflect the realities
            of our operating environment.

        PROVIDING RELEVANT AND READY LANDPOWER TO SUPPORT THE COMBATANT
                                   COMMANDERS

    Building a Campaign-Quality Force with Joint and Expeditionary
            Capabilities
        ``Campaign qualities'' refers to the Army's ability not only to win
    decisively in the conduct of combat on land but also in its ability to
    sustain operations. The Army supports the Combatant Commanders and the
    Joint Force, other agencies and coalition partners, for as long as may
    be required.
        The Army continues to improve strategic responsiveness in two ways.
    First, the Army is becoming more expeditionary. We are improving our
    ability to deploy rapidly to conduct joint operations in austere
    theaters. Our enemies are elusive, adaptive and seek refuge in complex
    terrain, often harbored by failed or failing states. They fully
    leverage many of the same technologies we do such as the Internet and
    satellite communications. To improve on our joint warfighting
    proficiency we are embracing these conditions in deployment scenarios,
    training and education.
        Second, we have improved our review and resourcing procedures to
    anticipate and support the Integrated Priority Lists developed by the
    Combatant Commanders. Likewise, we are continuing to anticipate and
    respond with urgency to our commanders' needs.
    Enhancing Joint Interdependence
        Each branch of the Armed Forces excels in a different domain--land,
    air, sea and space. Joint interdependence purposefully combines each
    Service's strengths, while minimizing their vulnerabilities. The Army
    is ensuring that our systems are fully complementary with the other
    Services.
        We are working aggressively with the other Services to improve the
    ability to dominate across the range of military operations. Our
    efforts embrace two characteristics of modern warfare. First,
    technology has extended the reach of modern weapon systems to the
    extent that collective force protection and anti-access techniques are
    necessary, even in facing irregular, asymmetric challenges. Second, the
    other Services' capabilities to dominate air, sea and space have direct
    impact on ground forces' ability to dominate on land.
        Our new modular formations will operate better in joint,
    multinational and interagency environments. These formations are
    designed to enhance joint concepts for battle command, fires and
    effects, logistics, force projection, intelligence, as well as air and
    missile defense. Our joint training opportunities will continue to
    improve as we work with Joint Forces Command and the other Services to
    develop a Joint National Training Capability. The planning, scenarios,
    connectivity and overall realism we are working to create will enhance
    critical joint operations skills for commanders and Soldiers.
        The ultimate test of joint initiatives is the Soldier. If a concept
    does not empower Soldiers, then we have to question its relevance. We
    are continuing our work to ensure that emerging capabilities and
    training requirements are created joint from the outset.
    Resetting the Force
        Major combat and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are
    placing tremendous demands on our equipment and our Soldiers. As a
    result, we must reset those units--by preparing Soldiers and their
    equipment for future missions--often as part of new modular formations.
    We use this opportunity to reset our units forward to the future--not
    to return them to their legacy designs.
        The major elements of our Reset Program include:
      --Providing considerable training and professional development for
            Soldiers and leaders;
      --Bringing unit readiness back up to Army standards;
      --Reorganizing returning units into modular unit designs;
      --Retraining essential tasks to incorporate lessons learned from Iraq
            and Afghanistan; and
      --Adjusting pre-positioned stocks of ammunition and equipment to
            support the force.
        Resetting the force reflects how we care for our people and prepare
    units for upcoming training and deployments, while positioning the Army
    to be more responsive to emerging threats and contingencies. Today, the
    standard for Active and Reserve Component reset is six and twelve
    months, respectively. Through a focused effort, our reset processes are
    becoming considerably more efficient in terms of both time and
    resources. The Army's depot capability and efforts to partner with
    industry are critical to this effort.
        The Reset Program is designed to reverse the effects of combat
    stress on our equipment. Amidst the constant demands of war, our
    equipment is aging far more rapidly than projected. Because of higher
    operational tempo, rough desert environments and limited depot
    maintenance available in theater, our operational fleets are aging four
    years for every year in theater--dramatically shortening their life.
    Over 6,500 tracked and wheeled vehicles must be recapitalized this year
    alone. An additional 500 aviation systems must also be recapitalized.
    We will require additional funding to ``buy back'' some of this age
    through extensive recapitalization programs as well as replacing combat
    losses.
        The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, the 3rd Infantry Division and 129
    of the more than 500 Army Reserve units (over 25 percent) have already
    completed the Reset Program. The 4th Infantry Division, the 2nd Light
    Cavalry Regiment, the 10th Mountain Division, the 1st Armored Division,
    the 76th Infantry Brigade (Indiana), the 30th Infantry Brigade (North
    Carolina), the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne Division
    (Air Assault) are in various stages of the Reset Program.
        Resetting units is not a one-time event. It is required for all
    redeploying units. A window of vulnerability exists at the end of our
    current operations. We project that it will take close to two years
    after the return of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan to completely
    refit our forces and to reconstitute the equipment held in our five
    pre-positioned sets. Only through an appropriately funded Reset Program
    can we extend the life of the operational fleet to remain ready to
    support and sustain protracted conflict. Congress has greatly helped
    the Army by providing supplemental funding to meet this critical need.
    We will continue to require additional resources to complete this
    essential work.
    Converting to a Brigade-Based, Modular Force
        Modular conversion will enable the Army to generate force packages
    optimized to meet the demands of a particular situation, without the
    overhead and support previously provided by higher commands. Modular
    units are tailored to meet the Combatant Commanders' requirements.
    These units, known as Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), are more robust,
    require less augmentation and are standardized in design to increase
    interoperability. They are, in essence, a self-sufficient, stand-alone
    tactical force, consisting of 3,500 to 4,000 Soldiers, that is
    organized and trains the way it fights.
        Modular BCTs will serve as the building blocks of Army
    capabilities. There are three common organizational designs for ground
    BCTs and five for support brigades. The three designs include a heavy
    brigade with two armor-mechanized infantry battalions and an armed
    reconnaissance battalion; an infantry brigade with two infantry
    battalions and an armed reconnaissance and surveillance battalion; and
    a Stryker brigade with three Stryker battalions and a reconnaissance
    and surveillance battalion. Four of the five types of support brigades
    perform a single function each: aviation; fires; sustain; and
    battlefield surveillance. The fifth, maneuver enhancement brigade, is
    organized around a versatile core of supporting units that provide
    engineer, military police, air defense, chemical and signal
    capabilities.
        By creating a modular, brigade-based Army, we are creating forces
    that are more rapidly deployable and more capable of independent action
    than our current division-based organization. Their strategic
    responsiveness will be greatly improved. Modularity increases each
    unit's capability by building in the communications, liaison and
    logistics capabilities needed to permit greater operational autonomy
    and support the ability to conduct joint, multinational operations.
    These capabilities have previously been resident at much higher
    organizational echelons.
        We are also eliminating an entire echelon of command above the
    brigade headquarters, moving from three levels to two. Doing so removes
    redundancies in command structure and frees additional personnel spaces
    for use elsewhere. We are also eliminating several layers of logistics
    headquarters to increase responsiveness, further reduce redundancy and
    improve joint logistics integration.
        In addition, the new higher-level headquarters will become
    significantly more capable and versatile than comparable headquarters
    today. These modular headquarters will be able to command and control
    any combination of capabilities: Army, joint or coalition. Their
    design, training and mindset will allow them to serve as the core of
    joint or multinational task force headquarters, with significantly
    reduced personnel augmentation. This will relieve stress on the force
    by eliminating a continuing demand to fill headquarters manning
    requirements on a temporary basis.
        The Army is also transforming its Reserve Component structures to
    the new BCT organization. We are applying the lessons learned in Iraq
    and Afghanistan to better train, equip, support and generate these
    units from their home stations. The Army Reserve is developing Army
    Reserve Expeditionary Packages to better generate and distribute
    critical force capabilities. This rotational force model streamlines
    mobilization, training and equipping of units; enhances readiness; and
    improves predictability for Soldiers, families and civilian employers.
        Execution of this transformation is already well underway. As units
    redeploy from fighting, their conversion process begins. The 3rd
    Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division have already
    reorganized their existing brigades and created a new brigade each. The
    3rd Infantry Division is the first converted unit returning to Iraq.
    The 10th Mountain Division and the 4th Infantry Division will soon
    follow. By the end of 2006, we will have added 10 new brigades.
    Potentially, we will create five more in 2007. The Army National Guard
    is converting 34 BCTs or separate brigades to modular designs. At the
    end of our effort, the Army will have 77 and potentially 82 total BCTs.
    Rebalancing Active and Reserve Component Units and Skills
        Our current Active and Reserve Component structure is not optimized
    for rapid deployment and sustainment. We are restructuring the force to
    increase units with special skills that are routinely in high demand by
    the Combatant Commanders, such as infantry, military police,
    transportation and civil affairs. Rather than requesting additional
    force increases, we are decreasing force structure in less demand. When
    completed, we will have restructured and rebalanced more than 100,000
    positions. We have already converted more than 34,000 of these
    positions.
        We are also placing more combat support and combat service support
    structure into the Active Component to improve deployability and the
    ability to sustain operations during the first 30 days of a
    contingency. This increase in high-demand sustainment units will reduce
    the requirements for immediate mobilization of Reserve Component units.
        The Army Reserve's Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative is
    another program that is helping to resource units at higher levels by
    converting or eliminating current force structure and specialties in
    low demand to increase those in greatest demand. This initiative
    relieves stress on units in higher demand and adds depth to the Army's
    operational forces.
    Stabilizing Soldiers and Units to Enhance Cohesion and Predictability
        To improve unit cohesion and readiness, while reducing both
    turbulence in units and uncertainty for families, we are changing how
    we man our units. Our objective is to keep Soldiers in units longer to
    reduce chronically high turnover rates of Soldiers and leaders, improve
    cohesion within units and increase training proficiency and overall
    combat readiness. Units that stay together longer build higher levels
    of teamwork, understand their duties and their equipment better,
    require less periodic retraining and tend to perform better during
    deployments. Fewer moves of Soldiers and their families also saves the
    Army money.
        These assignment policies, now being implemented, will also improve
    quality of life and predictability for Soldiers, families and civilian
    employers. Stabilizing Soldiers, which in certain cases, will be
    challenging to achieve in the near term, will allow their families to
    build deeper roots within their communities and enjoy better
    opportunities for spouse employment, continuity of healthcare,
    schooling and other benefits. This program also reduces the chance of a
    Soldier moving from a unit that recently redeployed to a unit preparing
    to deploy. The Army gains more cohesive, more experienced units while
    Soldiers and families benefit from greater predictability, stability
    and access to stronger support networks that enhance well-being.
        The 172nd Separate Infantry Brigade, in Alaska, was the first unit
    to implement unit stability. The Army will man four more brigades using
    this method this year. The Army will continue to implement
    stabilization policies as units redeploy to their home stations.
    Leveraging Army Science and Technology Programs
        The focus of Army science and technology is to accelerate maturing
    technologies with promising capabilities into the Current Force faster
    than expected. These technologies include:
      --Networked battle command and logistics systems;
      --Networked precision missiles and gun-launched munitions; and
      --Improved intelligence sensors, active and passive protection
            systems, unmanned ground and air systems and low-cost
            multispectral sensors.
        Many of these technologies are already being fielded to our front-
    line Soldiers to dramatically improve their capabilities. Specific
    science and technology initiatives will improve existing capabilities
    to:
      --Detect and neutralize mines and improvised explosive devices
            (IEDs);
      --Identify friendly forces in combat;
      --Develop medical technology for self-diagnosis and treatment;
      --Identify hostile fire indicators; and
      --Enhance survivability, training systems and robotics.
        We are working to harness the full potential of our science and
    technology establishment to improve the capability of our forces to
    defeat opponents in complex environments, which include urban terrain,
    triple-canopy jungle conditions, desert terrain, mountainous
    environments and caves.
    Spiraling Future Combat Systems Capabilities into the Current Force
        Our largest, most promising, science and technology investment
    remains the pursuit of Future Combat Systems (FCS) technologies. The
    FCS-equipped force will add crucial capabilities to the Future Force to
    achieve Department of Defense transformation goals. FCS is not a
    platform. It is a family of 18 networked air and ground-based maneuver,
    maneuver support and sustainment systems.
        Networked FCS capabilities will provide unprecedented levels of
    situational awareness by integrating communications, sensors, battle
    command systems as well as manned and unmanned reconnaissance and
    surveillance systems. FCS-equipped units, operating as a system of
    systems, will be more deployable and survivable than our current units
    and will enhance joint capabilities. They will also be better suited to
    conduct immediate operations, over extremely long distances, with other
    members of the Joint Force, to produce strategic effects.
        In July 2004, the Army restructured the FCS program to accelerate
    the introduction of battle command, the Army network and other crucial
    capabilities to the Current Force, while we continue to build our
    initial FCS-equipped BCT. Improvements to the Army network, known as
    LandWarNet, are focused on applying lessons learned from Iraq and
    Afghanistan to improve our forces' ability to see first, understand
    first, act first and finish decisively. LandWarNet, designed to support
    all Joint communications architectures, will apply the most mature
    technologies commercially available and support the fielding of the
    Joint Network Node, the Warfighter Information Network and the Joint
    Tactical Radio System.
        The Network provides the backbone for introducing the key FCS
    capabilities identified to be fielded early which include:
      --Unattended ground sensors;
      --Intelligent munitions;
      --Non-line-of-sight launch systems and cannon artillery; and
      --A range of unmanned aerial platforms.
        These systems provide greater target detection, force protection
    and precision-attack capabilities than we have today. Specific programs
    will enhance protection from enemy mortars, artillery and rockets and
    improve Soldiers' ability to communicate in urban and other complex
    settings. The acceleration of selective FCS technologies is providing
    immediate solutions to critical problems our Soldiers face today. The
    technologies we spiral into the Current Force today, coupled with the
    doctrinal and organizational concepts being developed to enable them,
    will also help to improve the decisions we make concerning the Future
    Force.
    Restructuring Army Aviation
        The Army is also transforming its aviation forces to develop
    modular, capabilities-based forces optimized to operate in a more joint
    environment. This past year, the Army cancelled the Comanche Program
    and redirected its resources into other Army aviation programs. The
    technologies developed by the Comanche Program are being used in our
    current Army aviation platforms.
        The reallocation of funding allowed the Army to modularize,
    modernize and improve its force protection capabilities. The Army is
    accelerating aircrew protection and fielding Aircraft Survivability
    Equipment. Our modular structure reduces the number of brigade designs
    from seven to two. Over the next six years, we are purchasing more than
    800 new aircraft that include 108 attack, 365 utility and 368 armed
    reconnaissance helicopters. We are also modernizing an additional 300
    helicopters. These initiatives will enable the Army to extend the life
    of its critical aviation assets beyond 2020. This will greatly reduce
    the age of our aviation fleet, improve readiness rates and reduce
    maintenance costs.
        As a result of the Comanche termination decision, the Army will:
      --Accelerate the modernization of Reserve Component aviation;
      --Accelerate the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Light Utility Helicopter
            and Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programs;
      --Focus additional resources on the Future Cargo Aircraft program
            designed to improve intra-theater lift capacity;
      --Develop a common cockpit for cargo and utility aircraft;
      --Field improved deployability and sustainment kits; and
      --Purchase and install advanced avionics packages.
        This restructuring will result in dramatic Army-wide efficiencies
    by reducing training costs and standardizing both maintenance and
    logistics requirements.

       TRAINING AND EQUIPPING SOLDIERS TO SERVE AS WARRIORS AND GROWING
                                ADAPTIVE LEADERS

    Reinforcing Our Centerpiece: Soldiers as Warriors
        Human skills may change as technology and warfare demand greater
    versatility. No matter how much the tools of warfare improve, it is the
    Soldier who must exploit these tools to accomplish his mission. The
    Soldier will remain the ultimate combination of sensor and shooter.
        The Army prepares every Soldier to be a Warrior by replicating, to
    the maximum degree possible, the stark realities of combat to condition
    Soldiers to react instinctively. We have changed our training systems
    to reflect the realities of war and to better prepare our Soldiers. Our
    goal is to build Soldiers' confidence in themselves, their equipment,
    their leaders and their fellow Soldiers.
        The biggest change is in our initial military training for new
    Soldiers. Initial-entry Soldiers are now being prepared to operate in
    an environment that knows no boundaries. They are receiving
    substantially more marksmanship training, hand-to-hand combat
    instruction, an increased emphasis on physical fitness, live-fire
    convoy training and more focus on skills Soldiers need to operate and
    survive in combat.
        Our Soldiers are smart, competent and totally dedicated to
    defending the Nation. All are guided by Army Values (Figure 2). They
    commit to live by the ideals contained in The Soldier's Creed (Figure
    3). This creed captures the Warrior Ethos and outlines the professional
    attitudes and beliefs desired of American Soldiers.

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

                                  Army Values
        Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution,
    the Army, your unit, and other soldiers.
        Duty: Fulfill your obligations.
        Respect: Treat people as they should be treated.
        Selfless-Service: Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and your
    subordinates before your own.
        Honor: Live up to all the Army values.
        Integrity: Do what's right, legally and morally.
        Personal Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or
    moral).

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

                                    Figure 2

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

                              The Soldier's Creed
        I am an American soldier.
        I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
    United States and live the Army values.
        I will always place the mission first.
        I will never accept defeat.
        I will never quit.
        I will never leave a fallen comrade.
        I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and
    proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms,
    my equipment and myself.
        I am an expert and I am a professional.
        I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the
    United States of America in close combat.
        I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
        I am an American soldier.

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

                                    Figure 3

        Mental and physical toughness underpin the beliefs embraced in the
    Soldier's Creed and must be developed within all Soldiers--without
    regard to their specialty, their unit or their location on the
    battlefield. The Warrior Ethos engenders the refusal to accept failure,
    the conviction that military service is much more than just another
    job, and the unfailing commitment to be victorious. It defines who
    Soldiers are and what Soldiers must do. It is derived from our long-
    standing Army Values and reinforces a personal commitment to service.
        Soldiers join the Army to serve. Our Soldiers know that their
    service is required to secure our Nation's freedoms and to maintain the
    American way of life. We will never take for granted the personal
    sacrifices our Soldiers and their families endure, which include facing
    the hardship of war, extended periods of separation and, in the case of
    our Reserve Component Soldiers, concerns over continued employment and
    advancement in their civilian jobs.
    Recruiting and Retaining Soldiers
        The Army continues to attract highly qualified and motivated young
    people to serve. To maintain our high-quality Army, we must recruit and
    retain good Soldiers. We are proud of the men and women who come into
    the Armed Forces to make a difference, to be part of something larger
    than themselves and to ``give something back'' to their country.
        In 2004, we met our Active and Reserve recruiting goals. The Army
    National Guard fell just short of its overall recruiting goal. While
    the recruiting environment is a challenging one, we have not lowered
    our standards. Our reenlistment rates reflect a positive outlook toward
    continued service. In 2004, the Active Component far exceeded its
    retention goal (107 percent) while the Army Reserve and Army National
    Guard achieved 99 percent of their goals.
        Our continued success is a testament to the citizen-patriots of
    America who enlist and reenlist in our ranks, yet we know that our
    operational situation could negatively impact recruiting and retention.
    We are therefore resourcing several incentives to help attract and
    retain the right people. We continue to offer options for continued
    service while meeting Soldiers' individual goals. Moreover, we continue
    to adjust policies and incentives to access new Soldiers, reenlist
    current Soldiers and reduce unit attrition rates. This ensures that our
    Army is manned with top-quality people and capitalizes on investments
    in training, education and mentoring.
        In light of the challenges we foresee, we will need the best minds
    within the Army, Congress, industry and academia to create the
    environment and to devise and implement strategies to sustain our ranks
    with the high-quality men and women that are our centerpiece.
    Equipping Our Soldiers
        Our Soldiers rely on and deserve the very best protection and
    equipment we can provide. To equip them for the challenges they face,
    one of the most critical issues we are addressing is vehicle armor.
    With the support of Congress, acting in full partnership with industry,
    the Army has dramatically increased the pace of both production and
    fielding. By March 2005, the current requirement of approximately
    32,500 tactical wheeled vehicles in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters
    will be protected either with integrated, add-on or locally fabricated
    armor. By June 2005, we will have replaced all fabricated armor with
    add-on armor. This rapid delivery schedule has increased the number of
    armored vehicles in theater one-hundred-fold since August 2003.
        Figure 4 lists eight key Soldier protection areas ranging from
    providing body armor for Soldiers to armor for HMMWVs, trucks and other
    key vehicles. Our enemies will continue to adapt their tactics; we will
    remain steadfast in our commitment to protect our Soldiers by meeting
    and exceeding theater requirements in all areas.
        In addition to protecting Soldiers, the Army is working
    aggressively to provide them the best possible equipment. The Army has
    established two programs to anticipate Soldiers' needs and respond
    quickly to those identified by commanders. Through emergency
    supplemental appropriations, Congress has been particularly helpful in
    funding these vital programs.

                       EQUIPPING OUR SOLDIERS: SOLDIER PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Area                       Where we were August 2003             Where we are in January 2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soldier body armor...............  Estimated 109,000 soldiers equipped;    All soldiers and DOD civilians in
                                        Deltoid Auxiliary Protectors not        theater equipped; plus 60,000
                                        fielded.                                Deltoid Auxiliary Protectors issued
    Up-armored HMMWVs................  Approximately 250 in theater..........  More than 6,400 HMMWVs fielded
    Tactical wheeled vehicle add-on    Developing plan to equip more than      More than 19,000 vehicles in theater
     armor kits.                        10,000 vehicles.                        have add-on armor kits
    Armored security vehicles (ASV)..  ASV program cancelled during the 2003   82 ASVs in theater; total requirement
                                        budget and programming decision.        of 872 approved
    Bradley reactive armor tiles       140 vehicle sets delivered............  592 sets delivered; acceleration plan
     (BRAT).                                                                    in execution
    Counter-IED device...............  Minimal capability in theater.........  1,496 systems in theater
    Tactical and small unmanned        Two systems deployed to theater;        128 systems deployed; requirement
     aerial vehicle (UAV).              requirement is 194.                     remains 194
    Aircraft survivability equipment   No fixed wing ASE; in process of        All theater aircraft upgraded with
     (ASE).                             upgrading CH-47 Chinook and UH-60       basic ASE. In process of upgrading
                                        Blackhawk aircraft with basic ASE.      to an advanced common missile
                                                                                warning system/improved
                                                                                countermeasure munitions dispenser
                                                                                (CMWS/ICMD)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Figure 4

        The Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) is designed to fill Soldier
    equipment shortfalls by quickly fielding commercial off-the-shelf
    technology rather than waiting for standard acquisition programs to
    address these shortages. RFI is increasing Soldier capabilities at an
    unprecedented pace. Since September 2002, we have equipped 36 Brigade
    Combat Teams. In 2004 alone, the Army equipped more than 180,000
    Soldiers.
        We are equipping deploying National Guard, Army Reserve and Active
    Component Soldiers to a common standard. Current plans call for
    equipping about 258,000 Soldiers in 2005 and the entire operational
    force by September 2007. We are using fielding teams at home stations
    and in theater to ensure that every Soldier receives 49 items including
    body armor, advanced ballistic helmets, hydration systems, ballistic
    goggles, kneepads, elbow pads and other items. The equipment being
    issued to units reflects the lessons learned during three years of
    fighting in complex environments, including optical sights for weapons,
    grappling hooks, door rams and fiber optic viewers to support Soldiers'
    ability to observe from protected positions.
        The Rapid Equipping Force (REF) typically uses commercial and
    field-engineered solutions to quickly meet operational needs. REF has
    executed numerous initiatives to support the Army's Improvised
    Explosive Device (IED) Task Force and the requirements of the other
    Services. REF solutions meet immediate needs and are then assessed for
    wider fielding and incorporation into standard acquisition processes.
        REF teams in Afghanistan and Iraq interact with commanders at
    brigade and battalion levels. Equipment provided ranges from lock shims
    to open padlocks nondestructively to far more sophisticated, remote-
    controlled reconnaissance devices to explore caves, tunnels, wells and
    other confined spaces without endangering Soldiers. REF also provides
    predeployment and in-theater training on the technological solutions it
    provides.
    Training Soldiers and Growing Adaptive Leaders
        A balance of training and education is required to prepare Soldiers
    to perform their duties. Training prepares Soldiers and leaders to
    operate in relatively certain conditions, focusing on ``what to
    think.'' Education prepares Soldiers and leaders to operate in
    uncertain conditions, focusing more on ``how to think.'' We are
    developing more rigorous, stressful training scenarios to prepare
    leaders to be more comfortable while operating amidst uncertainty.
        Our programs develop leaders with the right mix of unit
    experiences, training and education needed to adapt to the rigors and
    challenges of war. We continue to adjust training, across the Army, to
    reflect the joint operating environment by incorporating the lessons
    learned from current operations. We are also implementing the National
    Security Personnel System, an innovative new approach to civilian
    personnel management and leader identification. This will help to
    transform our management and development of critical Army civilians and
    achieve our desired objectives for the overall mindset and culture of
    the force.
        In light of the challenges posed by the 21st century security
    environment, the Army is moving from an ``alert-train-deploy'' training
    model to a ``train-alert-deploy-employ'' model. We recognize that, in
    an increasing number of situations, we will have little time to train
    prior to deploying. For this reason, Army transformation is focused on
    providing key training and education to increase readiness for no-
    notice expeditionary operations.
        We have incorporated lessons learned into all of our systems and
    training scenarios at our mobilization stations and combat training
    centers. This adaptation is having an immediate, tangible impact on the
    streets of Iraq, the battlefields of Afghanistan and in other places
    around the world. Other key improvements include:
      --Increased funding to adapt ranges and facilities to reflect likely
            combat situations;
      --Adjusted Defense Language Institute requirements to meet immediate
            operational needs for Arabic translators;
      --Increased ammunition allocations to improve every Soldier's live-
            fire weapons training; and
      --Required live-fire training to ensure all Soldiers and units
            develop proficiency in the key battle drills needed to conduct
            safe convoy operations and other tasks.
        To ensure our leaders learn from our veterans, we have implemented
    formal assignment guidelines to make best use of Soldier and leader
    experiences. We are assigning veterans to key joint billets as well as
    to key instructor and doctrine development positions. In addition, our
    most experienced officers and noncommissioned officers will return to
    operational units to apply their experiences in leading our fighting
    units.
        The Army remains committed to the education of our leaders even
    during this period of war. In fact, we are more aggressively pursuing
    leaders' education now than during any other period of conflict in our
    history. We are educating our leaders to expand their minds, increase
    their cultural awareness and to promote a ``lifetime of learning.''
    These initiatives to our professional military education are based on
    three pillars--institutional education, self-study and experience. The
    synergy created by the combination of these three forms of education
    provides our leaders with enhanced capabilities to adapt to an
    increasingly ambiguous security environment.
        To facilitate excellence in our leaders at every level, Joint
    Professional Military Education (JPME) is embedded throughout Army
    learning. Joint awareness is introduced in precommissioning education
    and training of all officers, as well as the mid-level noncommissioned
    officer courses. Our training and education systems further emphasize a
    more in-depth understanding of joint principles and concepts beginning
    at the Captain/Major level for officers and the Sergeant Major level
    for our noncommissioned officers. Our senior-level JPME programs
    develop our civilian leaders and further educate military leaders on
    the joint, multinational and interagency processes. This education is
    reinforced by experiences obtained in joint assignments. This increased
    understanding of the capabilities of other Services and external
    organizations significantly improves our leaders' ability to support
    the Joint Force in achieving national objectives.
        Our military education programs teach our leaders critical thinking
    skills in ``how to think'' versus ``what to think.'' Supported by Army
    Values, the Warrior Ethos and the experiences obtained through training
    and combat, Army leaders at all levels continue to hone the skills
    required to win in the complex environment of the 21st century.
    Enhancing the Combat Training Centers
        The Combat Training Center (CTC) Program provides highly realistic
    training to prepare Soldiers and leaders to execute our doctrine for
    operating with other Services, the military forces of other nations and
    other agencies of the U.S. Government. This training is essential as we
    become increasingly more interdependent with other Services, allies and
    the interagency community. The training centers include the Battle
    Command Training Program at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; the Joint
    Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana; the National
    Training Center at Fort Irwin, California; and the Combat Maneuver
    Training Center at Hohenfels, Germany.
        These training centers are agents of change. Training scenarios are
    constantly updated to reflect changing battlefield conditions and
    incorporate lessons learned. In all scenarios, Soldiers and leaders are
    presented with complex, cross-cultural challenges by large numbers of
    role players who act as both combatants and foreign citizens.
        Additionally, each of the training centers is building extensive
    urban combat training facilities, as well as cave and tunnel complexes,
    to simulate wartime environments. As the Army transforms to a modular
    force, the CTCs will improve their ability to export a CTC-like
    training experience to home stations to reduce deployment requirements
    for training. The CTCs will continue to adapt to meet the training
    requirements to best serve a modularized Army.

     ATTAINING A QUALITY OF LIFE AND WELL-BEING FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT MATCH
                          THE QUALITY OF THEIR SERVICE

    Maintaining the Viability of the All-Volunteer Force
        The United States Army owes its success to the All-Volunteer Force,
    which provides the high-quality, versatile young Americans we depend on
    to serve as Soldiers. This is the first time in our history in which
    the Nation has tested the All-Volunteer Force during a prolonged war.
    The quality-of-life programs that support our Soldiers and their
    families, as well as our civilian workforce, will play a major role in
    maintaining the overall viability of this concept. Determining what
    kind of All-Volunteer Army we need and developing the environment,
    compensation, education and other incentives to keep it appropriately
    manned may well be the greatest strategic challenge we face.
        Maintaining the viability of this force will depend on several
    factors. First, American citizens must remain convinced that the Army
    is a great place to serve. While Soldiers perform their duties to meet
    Army expectations, the Army, in turn, must provide an environment in
    which individual aspirations can be met. To concentrate on the
    challenges they face, Soldiers must understand the frequency and cycle
    of projected deployments. Likewise, they must believe that their
    families will be provided for in their absence. Similarly, programs to
    encourage civilian employer support to Reserve Component Soldiers, who
    comprise more than half the Army force, are required to recruit and
    retain Reserve Component Soldiers.
        The Army is executing a full, diverse range of programs and
    activities that will help us to attract and retain the quality people
    we need to maintain a volunteer force during a time of war. It is of
    national interest to retain these dedicated Soldiers to sustain the
    overall viability of our All-Volunteer Army. The support of Congress
    and the American people is vital to this effort.
    Caring for Army Families and Soldiers
        Army Well-Being programs contribute to the Army's ability to
    provide trained and ready forces. These programs enable leaders to care
    for their people while accomplishing the missions assigned to their
    units. Providing for the well-being of Soldiers' families is a
    fundamental leadership imperative that requires adequate support and
    resources. We are pursuing numerous programs designed to improve spouse
    employment, ease the transitioning of high school students during moves
    and extend in-state college tuition rates to military families. We are
    also examining how best to expand support for veterans and National
    Guard and Army Reserve Soldiers. For example, TRICARE policies now
    allow for the eligibility of National Guard and Reserve Soldiers and
    their families.
        Housing programs are another way in which we manifest our care for
    Soldiers and their families. We continue to focus considerable effort
    on our Residential Communities Initiative and Barracks Modernization
    Program. Congressional support for these initiatives has had a dramatic
    effect on improving the quality of life for our Soldiers and their
    families. The Army has already privatized more than 50,000 housing
    units and will eventually privatize over 32,000 more.
        Programs like the Residential Communities Initiative, when
    reinforced with other ongoing programs, will greatly help in our
    ability to retain Soldiers and families. These programs include:
      --Improvements in healthcare, child care, youth programs, schools,
            facilities and other well-being initiatives; and
      --Investments in new barracks for Soldiers without families, new
            centers for Reserve Component units and significant
            improvements in training ranges.
        We support our Soldiers who have become casualties during war
    through the Disabled Soldier Support System (DS\3\). This initiative
    provides our Army's most severely disabled Soldiers and their families
    with a system of follow-up support beyond their transition from
    military service. DS\3\ provides support to families during the initial
    casualty notification, tracks the Soldier's return trip home and
    provides appropriate assistance in coordinating pertinent local,
    federal and national agencies. For the Soldier, this support includes
    rehabilitation, support at the medical and physical evaluation boards
    (which embrace unprecedented ways for severely injured Soldiers to
    continue to serve) and integration with veterans affairs organizations,
    as required.
        The Army will continue to look for ways to improve on our DS\3\
    initiative and deliver on our unfailing obligation to care for our
    people. To monitor and to report on the care being afforded to our
    Soldiers in the DS\3\ program, we have enlisted the support of our
    voluntary Civilian Aides to the Secretary of the Army. These aides are
    notified when disabled Soldiers are released from active service. They
    support the transition of these Soldiers to civilian life and work
    closely with civic leaders to assist in job placement, continued
    rehabilitation, education and other services to benefit these Soldiers
    and their families.
        The resilience of the young men and women and their spouses, who
    have sacrificed so that others might have a brighter future, is
    humbling and exemplary. We will honor their service and sacrifice by
    remaining steadfast in our support to them.

     PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENABLE THE FORCE TO FULFILL ITS STRATEGIC
                               ROLES AND MISSIONS

    Business Transformation
        Transformation of our business, resourcing and acquisition
    processes promotes the long-term health of the Army. It will free human
    and financial resources that can be better applied towards
    accomplishing our warfighting requirements and accelerating other
    aspects of transformation.
        We are working aggressively to streamline our business processes
    and practices by taking advantage of industry innovation through
    commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, outsourcing and partnering.
    We are also adopting electronic business operations and a portfolio
    management approach to information technology requirements, while
    continuing to pursue U.S. Government guidelines for competitive
    sourcing. These reform initiatives will remain congruent with other
    Department of Defense transformation initiatives, such as the Defense
    Integrated Military Human Resources System.
        One key business initiative is the General Fund Enterprise Business
    System, an integrated COTS system that will replace the Army's 30-year-
    old accounting systems. The objective is to meet legislative
    requirements, while helping the Army to obtain an unqualified audit
    opinion of its annual financial statements.
        Additionally, the Army Review and Resourcing Board is helping to
    validate and resource requirements, to accelerate the ``requirements to
    solutions'' cycle time and to make recommendations to the leadership on
    resource adjustments. The Army intends to make our processes more
    flexible, transparent and responsive to both immediate and future
    requirements of the Joint Force.
        To meet the needs of the Future Force and to improve both
    effectiveness and efficiency, we are also adapting the Institutional
    Army. The Institutional Army helps to accomplish our Title 10 functions
    to recruit and train our Soldiers, generate and sustain the force and
    other Services with materiel and equipment, and prepare the force for
    the future through doctrine development, research and experimentation.
    It represents about one-third of the Army in the form of Active,
    National Guard, Army Reserve units, Department of the Army civilians
    and contractors. It includes Headquarters, Department of the Army;
    Training and Doctrine Command; Forces Command; Army Medical Command;
    Army Materiel Command; Army Corps of Engineers and numerous other
    organizations.
        The idea of adapting the Institutional Army is not new. Driven by
    strategic, operational and fiscal necessities of war, the time to do it
    is now. The Army Campaign Plan communicates the scope of adaptation
    that is required to:
      --Identify and divest ourselves of functions no longer relevant to
            current missions;
      --Develop a joint, interdependent, end-to-end logistics structure
            that integrates a responsive civil-military sustaining base to
            better meet Army operational requirements;
      --Foster a culture of innovation to significantly increase
            institutional agility; and
      --Convert military positions to civilian positions, where
            appropriate, to improve the availability of Soldiers for
            deploying units.
        We are incorporating these objectives into a comprehensive plan for
    adapting the Institutional Army, process-by-process, structure-by-
    structure, over a multiyear period. This plan will provide context,
    direction and a general vector to support the immediate adaptation of
    the Institutional Army to reflect our wartime focus. The Army will
    develop this plan during this fiscal year.
    Maintaining Our Installations as ``Flagships of Readiness''
        Our installations are an essential component in maintaining the
    premier Army in the world. Our installations are the platforms from
    which we rapidly mobilize and deploy military power and sustain our
    military families. Installations also play a vital role in training the
    force and reconstituting it upon return from deployment. They also
    provide deployed commanders with the ability to reach back for
    information and other support through advanced communications
    technology.
        To enable the creation of new modular brigades, the Army has
    greatly accelerated the normal planning, programming and budgeting
    cycle, requiring installation commanders to find innovative solutions
    to support additional Soldiers training and living on our
    installations. The Army is using existing facilities when available and
    making renovations and modifications, where feasible. Often, we must
    acquire temporary structures to satisfy facility shortfalls. We are
    also funding site preparation work, permanent utility infrastructure
    and renovation projects. Each installation has unique requirements to
    support and sustain the Army's new modular force structure.
        The condition of our installation infrastructure, such as vehicle
    maintenance and physical fitness facilities, continues to present
    challenges due to the compounding effects of many decades of
    underfunding. Investment in the installations that are homes to our
    Soldiers and families, and the workplace for our civilians, will
    continue to play a vital role in attracting and retaining volunteers to
    serve.
    Improving Global Force Posture
        The Army is adjusting its global posture to meet the needs of
    Combatant Commanders. The objective is to increase strategic
    responsiveness while decreasing its overseas footprint and exposure. As
    part of a larger Department of Defense program, these adjustments will
    have a fundamental impact on our facilities and our ability to surge
    forces when needed. In place of traditional overseas bases with
    extensive infrastructure, we intend to use smaller forward operating
    bases with pre-positioned equipment and rotational presence of
    personnel.
        Parallel with the Base Realignment and Closure process, the Army is
    identifying critical joint power projection installations to support
    the mobilization, demobilization and rapid deployment of Army forces.
    We are also enhancing force reception and deployed logistics
    capabilities to quickly respond to unforeseen contingencies.
        To complete the transition to an expeditionary force, we will
    reposition ground forces to meet emerging challenges and adjust our
    permanent overseas presence to a unit-rotation model that is
    synchronized with force generation initiatives. In Europe, both heavy
    divisions will return to the United States. They are being replaced by
    expanding the airborne brigade in Italy, enhancing the Army's training
    center in Germany and establishing a possible rotational presence in
    Eastern Europe. We will maintain a rotational presence in the Middle
    East while eliminating many of our permanent bases. In the Pacific, we
    will maintain smaller forward-presence forces, but will station more
    agile and expeditionary forces capable of rapid response at power
    projection bases. Finally, we will leverage our improved readiness to
    increase our rotational training presence among our security partners.
    LandWarNet
        LandWarNet is the Army's portion of the Department of Defense's
    Global Information Grid. LandWarNet, a combination of infrastructure
    and services, moves information through a seamless network and enables
    the management of warfighting and business information.
        Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the power of a highly
    mobile communications network and network-centric operations. A
    network-centric force has dramatically improved situational awareness
    and quality of information which, in turn, leads to dramatic
    improvements in military effectiveness across the range of vital
    functions including operational cycle times, command and control, force
    application, force protection and logistics. These improvements combine
    to create unprecedented levels of flexibility and agility.
        The 1st Cavalry Division and the 1st Armored Division have
    demonstrated this agility in their operations. Using the power of
    networked communications, they have been able to move information at
    unprecedented rates which has shortened the time required to conduct
    tactical and operational updates. This has accelerated the speed of
    command by enabling faster planning and execution of operations. Using
    this technology, Stryker units were able to move from northern
    locations to the south and fight two battles within 48 hours,
    demonstrating a significant improvement in both flexibility and
    agility.
        Equipping Soldiers with world-class communications capabilities is
    also improving the ability to provide logistical support. For example,
    the 3rd Infantry Division was fielded, prior to their redeployment to
    Iraq this year, with the Joint Network Transport Capability-Spiral,
    which includes the Joint Network Node, Trojan Spirit and the Combat
    Service Support Very Small Aperture Terminal. These systems provide
    versatile satellite communications that improve the ability to sustain
    operations over extended distances in complex terrain by reducing gaps
    in current capability. Three other divisions will receive these systems
    this year. We are also fielding commercial solutions available now to
    expand communications capabilities and to increase self-sufficiency.
        The Network will also help to provide ``actionable intelligence''
    for commanders and Soldiers in a more timely manner than today. The
    Network will improve situational awareness and the quality and speed of
    combat decision making. It will leverage the Army's initiatives to
    expand human intelligence and improve analytical capabilities for
    deployed forces. Moreover, it will enable improvements in collaboration
    and analysis, while making it possible to share intelligence products
    more readily with the commanders and Soldiers that have the greatest
    need for them.
        Accelerating the fielding of Battle Command capabilities to
    establish a more capable and reliable network will support the
    Department of Defense goal to bring the joint community closer to a
    common operational picture. LandWarNet will integrate joint maneuver
    forces, joint fires and actionable intelligence to produce far greater
    capability and responsiveness. The combined effect of our Battle
    Command and Network programs will be to improve combat capability
    today, while enhancing the relevance and readiness of the Future Force.

         BALANCING RISK: THE TENSION BETWEEN CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS

        To reduce the risk associated with operations in support of the
    Global War on Terror, in the aftermath of September 11, we have made
    numerous decisions to allocate resources to immediate, urgent wartime
    needs. These decisions, made prior to and during 2004, have better
    enabled our Soldiers to accomplish their missions. Our challenge, in
    the months and years ahead, will be to establish a balance between
    current and future investments that will keep risk at moderate levels
    as we support the execution of the full scope of our global commitments
    while preparing for future challenges.
    ``Buying Back'' Capabilities
        Prior to September 11, the Army's strategic investment decisions
    were based on a prevailing view that, in the absence of a peer
    competitor, risk could be accepted in numerous areas of procurement for
    the Current Force to facilitate substantial investment in the Future
    Force.
        In the aftermath of September 11, Army requirements changed
    dramatically. Army decisions made during 2004 reflect the need to ``buy
    back'' many of the capabilities, forsaken in recent years, now required
    to support the Combatant Commanders. Buying back these capabilities has
    reduced operational risk, improved force protection and supports
    evolving priorities. While these decisions have produced dramatic,
    immediate improvements for our Soldiers and for our capabilities in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, the costs, in excess of $6.5 billion, have been
    substantial.
    Major Decisions in 2004
        During 2004, the Army restructured or cancelled 126 programs to
    free resources for more pressing wartime requirements. The most
    significant of these decisions are described below.
      --In May 2004, as highlighted earlier, the Army cancelled the
            Comanche Program. We are reinvesting the $14.6 billion in
            savings into pressing Army aviation requirements and correcting
            many chronic equipment shortfalls.
      --In July 2004, the Army restructured the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
            Program to accelerate the introduction of crucial new
            capabilities to the Current Force. By accelerating FCS, the
            Army will be able to spiral promising technologies into the
            hands of Soldiers and leaders to give them the tools they need
            now.
        Other decisions made by Congress or the Department of Defense acted
    to significantly enhance the Army's capability to accomplish its
    assigned missions.
      --In October 2004, the Army was authorized by the National Defense
            Authorization Act to raise Active Component end strength by
            20,000 Soldiers and, between 2005 and 2009, increase by an
            additional 10,000 Soldiers. This increase is intended to
            provide the personnel strength needed to implement our modular
            conversion and rebalancing initiatives. The increase in end
            strength also expands the potential options for operational
            tour lengths, which we are fully evaluating in the larger
            context of the Army's ability to generate the combat and
            sustainment forces needed to support operations in multiple
            theaters of war.
      --During fiscal year 2004, in addition to supporting these critical
            decisions, the Department of Defense and the other Services
            supported Army operations and helped to maintain
            transformational momentum, by reprogramming significant
            resources to Army accounts. The Army also received more than
            $15.4 billion of a $25 billion contingency reserve fund
            appropriated by Congress.
    Meeting Today's Demands While Preparing for Tomorrow
        We have done much to mitigate risk, in all dimensions, but
    particularly in operational risk. Creating modular units; fielding of
    Stryker Brigade Combat Teams; restructuring of Army Aviation following
    the cancellation of the Comanche Program; establishing the Reset
    Program and initiating rapid fielding; and rapid equipping programs are
    all helping to meet demands for Army forces, while reducing levels of
    operational risk.
        Due to dramatically increased operational tempo, the operational
    fleet's condition and age are affecting current equipment readiness.
    Increased mileage and flight hours, coupled with the severe
    environmental conditions encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan, have
    placed greater stress on the fleet than expected. The Army will require
    assistance to address the risk. As part of the Reset Program, increased
    repair, recapitalization and replacement of systems will be required to
    ensure our fleet is maintained and fully capable.
        Numerous initiatives are focused to reduce force management risk.
    These include:
      --Establishing a larger pool of rotational forces through modularity;
      --Rebalancing the Active and Reserve Components;
      --Eliminating redundant capabilities;
      --Executing a comprehensive military-to-civilian conversion program;
      --Stabilizing the force;
      --Enhancing recruiting and retention by adding recruiters and
            creating special incentives; and
      --Increasing the personnel strength of the operational Army.
        In addition, congressional approval of increases in Active
    Component personnel strength is helping the Army to man its
    transforming modular Brigade Combat Teams now undergoing activation or
    conversion.
        Our Army is focusing resources on spiraling higher payoff
    technologies into the Current Force to minimize future risks. Our
    investment accounts will be critical to our ability to maintain
    technological superiority and ensure the development and fielding of
    the Future Force. We will need assistance to maintain these investment
    accounts to strike the proper balance between supporting current
    operations and readiness and investing in capabilities required to
    ensure future success.
        To reduce institutional risk, we are continuing to refine our
    resourcing processes to make them more agile and responsive to the
    immediate requirements of the Combatant Commanders and to help prepare
    the Army for future challenges. Our investments in LandWarNet (to
    facilitate real time, common understanding of dynamic situations) are
    improving our installations' ability to project and sustain forces.
    This result is a more rapidly deployable force that requires less
    logistics overhead structure and a greater capacity to reach back to
    their home stations for intelligence, medical and other essential
    support.
        Increased funding will be required to accomplish our current tasks
    and simultaneously prepare for the future. Reduced funding would have a
    significant impact on procurement; repair, recapitalization and
    replacement of the heavily utilized operational fleet; resetting the
    force; and Soldier programs, while preparing the force to accomplish
    the full range of future requirements, projected in an uncertain,
    unpredictable era.

             REMAINING RELEVANT AND READY IN SERVICE TO THE NATION

        Our commitment to the Nation is certain and unwavering. The Army
    has defended the Nation for 230 years. We continue to remain vigilant
    in this fundamental task by providing the Nation unique capabilities to
    complement those provided by the other Services.
        The Army remains a values-based organization committed to the
    ideals of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity
    and Personal Courage. These ideals are embodied in the Soldier's Creed
    and the Warrior Ethos and are ingrained into the fiber of every
    American Soldier. We remain dedicated to preparing every Soldier to
    face the realities of combat and positioning the Army to face the
    challenges of the future.
        Even as we fight the Global War on Terror and sustain our other
    strategic commitments, we must continue to focus on tomorrow. We are
    challenging our institutional practices and our assessment of current
    and future warfighting capabilities by asking key questions and
    continuing to validate our answers to them:
      --What are the strategic requirements of the 21st century security
            environment?
      --What are the characteristics and capabilities of a truly joint,
            interdependent, network-centric force, designed to dominate
            across the full range of military operations?
      --Will Army and joint transformation activities produce the
            capabilities required to dominate across the range of military
            operations in the environment where they will most likely
            occur?
      --Are joint land forces (Army, Marines and Special Operations Forces)
            properly sized, structured and trained to perform the full
            scope of missions required now and in the future?
      --What are the optimal roles for the Army's Active and Reserve
            Components and the Joint Force in homeland defense?
      --What will the impact of sustained, protracted conflict be on the
            All-Volunteer force?
      --What combination of quality of life, compensation, incentives,
            service options and other tools will be required to recruit and
            retain the All-Volunteer Force of the future?
        We continue in our determination to achieve our overarching
    strategic goal: to remain relevant and ready by providing the Combatant
    Commanders with the capabilities required to dominate across the range
    of military operations.
        With the support of the Department of Defense and Congress, we are
    sustaining our global commitments while making tremendous progress in
    our transformation--the most dramatic restructuring of the Army in more
    than 50 years. We will need your continued support in order to provide
    relevant and ready forces and other capabilities to the Combatant
    Commanders, while providing for the well-being of our All-Volunteer
    Soldiers and their families who are serving the Nation in this time of
    war.

                                   ADDENDUM A
                          (DATA REQUIRED BY NDAA 1994)

        Sections 517 and 521 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1994 require the information in this addendum
    (Note: 521 of the NDAA has been codified in 10 U.S. Code 10542). The
    information is presented in the order and depth as required by the act.
    Section 517 requires a report relating to the implementation of the
    Pilot Program for Active Component Support of the Reserves under
    Section 414 of the NDAA for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. Section 521
    requires a detailed presentation concerning the Army National Guard,
    including information relating to the implementation of the Army
    National Guard Combat Readiness Reform Act of 1992 (title XI of Public
    Law 102-484, and referred in the addendum as ``ANGCRRA''). Section 521
    reporting was later amended by Section 704, fiscal year 1996 NDAA. U.S.
    Army Reserve information is also presented using Section 521 reporting
    criteria.
        Section 517(b)(2)(A).--(See Figure A-1) The promotion rate for
    officers considered for promotion from within the promotion zone who
    are serving as Active Component advisors to units of the Selected
    Reserve of the Ready Reserve (in accordance with that program) compared
    with the promotion rate for other officers considered for promotion
    from within the promotion zone in the same pay grade and the same
    competitive category, shown for all officers of the Army.

                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      AC in RC       Army
                                                        \1\      Average \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2003:
        Major.....................................         87.4         93.8
        Lieutenant Colonel........................         40.5         79.6
    Fiscal Year 2004:
        Major.....................................         93.4         96.9
        Lieutenant Colonel........................         38.9         79.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Active Component (AC) officers serving in Reserve Component (RC)
      assignments at time of consideration.
    \2\ Active Component officers not serving in Reserve Component
      assignments at the time of consideration.

                                   Figure A-1

        Section 517(b)(2)(B).--(See Figure A-2) The promotion rate for
    officers considered for promotion from below the promotion zone who are
    serving as Active Component advisors to units of the Selected Reserve
    of the Ready Reserve (in accordance with that program) compared in the
    same manner as specified in subparagraph (A) (the paragraph above).

                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      AC in RC       Army
                                                        \1\      Average \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2003:
        Major.....................................          3.6          7.5
        Lieutenant Colonel........................  ...........          7.2
    Fiscal Year 2004:
        Major.....................................          4.6          7.5
        Lieutenant Colonel........................          3.4          7.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Below-the-zone, active component officers serving in Reserve
      Component assignments at time of consideration.
    \2\ Below-the-zone, active component officers not serving in Reserve
      Component assignments at the time of consideration.

                                   Figure A-2

    Section 521(b).
        1. The number and percentage of officers with at least two years of
    active duty before becoming a member of the Army National Guard or U.S.
    Army Reserve Selected Reserve units:
          a. Army National Guard (ARNG) officers: 20,653 or 56.3 percent.
          b. U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officers: 9,828 or 25.47 percent.
        2. The number and percentage of enlisted personnel with at least
    two years of active duty before becoming a member of the Army National
    Guard or U.S. Army Reserve Selected Reserve units:
          a. ARNG enlisted: 129,985 or 42.5 percent.
          b. USAR enlisted: 36,396 or 21.64 percent.
        3. The number of officers who are graduates of one of the service
    academies and were released from active duty before the completion of
    their active duty service obligation. Of those officers:
          a. The number who are serving the remaining period of their
            active duty service obligation as a member of the Selected
            Reserve pursuant to section 1112(a)(1) of ANGCRRA:
            In fiscal year 2004, no officers were released to the selective
                reserve to complete their obligation.
          b. The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary
            under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the reason
            for each waiver:
            In fiscal year 2004, no waivers were granted by the Secretary
                of the Army.
        4. The number of officers who were commissioned as distinguished
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) graduates and were released
    from active duty before the completion of their active duty service
    obligation and, of those officers:
          a. The number who are serving the remaining period of their
            active duty service obligation as a member of the Selected
            Reserve pursuant to section 1112(a)(1) of ANGCRRA:
            In fiscal year 2004, no distinguished ROTC graduates were
                released before completing their active duty service
                obligation.
            In fiscal year 2004, no waivers for distinguished ROTC
                graduates were granted.
          b. The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary
            under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the reason
            for each waiver:
            In fiscal year 2004, no waivers were granted by the Secretary
                of the Army.
        5. The number of officers who are graduates of the Reserve
    Officers' Training Corps program and who are performing their minimum
    period of obligated service in accordance with section 1112(b) of
    ANGCRRA by a combination of (A) two years of active duty, and (B) such
    additional period of service as is necessary to complete the remainder
    of such obligation served in the National Guard and, of those officers,
    the number for whom permission to perform their minimum period of
    obligated service in accordance with that section was granted during
    the preceding fiscal year:
          In fiscal year 2004, four ROTC graduates were released early from
            their active duty obligation. Of this number, none are
            completing the remainder of their obligation through service in
            the Army National Guard, and none through service in the U.S.
            Army Reserve.
        6. The number of officers for whom recommendations were made during
    the preceding fiscal year for a unit vacancy promotion to a grade above
    first lieutenant and, of those recommendations, the number and
    percentage that were concurred in by an active duty officer under
    section 1113(a) of ANGCRRA, shown separately for each of the three
    categories of officers set forth in section 1113(b) of ANGCRRA (with
    U.S. Army Reserve data also reported):
          a. ARNG.--1,490 ARNG officers from units were recommended for
            unit vacancy promotion and promoted. An active duty officer
            concurred with 100 percent.
          b. USAR.--178 USAR officers from units were recommended for unit
            vacancy promotion. 121 were favorably considered.
        7. The number of waivers during the preceding fiscal year under
    section 1114(a) of ANGCRRA of any standard prescribed by the Secretary
    establishing a military education requirement for noncommissioned
    officers and the reason for each such waiver:
          In fiscal year 2004, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
            the Army.
        8. The number and distribution by grade, shown for each State, of
    personnel in the initial entry training and nondeployability personnel
    accounting category established under section 1115 of ANGCRRA for
    members of the Army National Guard who have not completed the minimum
    training required for deployment or who are otherwise not available for
    deployment. (A narrative summary of information pertaining to the U. S.
    Army Reserve is also provided):
          a. ARNG.--In fiscal year 2004, the number of ARNG non-deployable
            personnel was 38,221. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) maintains
            the detailed information by State.
          b. USAR.--In fiscal year 2004, the total number of USAR non-
            deployable personnel was 34,318. The United States Army Reserve
            Command maintains non-deployable Soldier statistical
            information.
        9. The number of members of the Army National Guard, shown for each
    State, that were discharged during the previous fiscal year pursuant to
    section 1115(c)(1) of ANGCRRA for not completing the minimum training
    required for deployment within 24 months after entering the National
    Guard (and Army Reserve):
          a. ARNG.--The number of ARNG Soldiers discharged during the
            previous fiscal year pursuant to section 11115(c)(1) of ANGCRRA
            for not completing the minimum training required for deployment
            within 24 months after entering the ARNG is 30 Officers and
            10,285 enlisted, which includes all 54 States and territories.
            The breakdown by each State is maintained by NGB.
          b. USAR.--The number of USAR Soldiers discharged in fiscal year
            2004 due to not completing required military Initial Entry
            Training (IET) includes 109 officers and 415 enlisted. Those
            Soldiers who have not completed the required IET within the
            first 24 months are discharged from the Army Reserve. The
            United States Army Reserve Command maintains statistical
            information on non-completion of IET by Army Reserve Soldiers.
        10. The number of waivers, shown for each State, that were granted
    by the Secretary during the previous fiscal year under section
    1115(c)(2) of ANGCRRA of the requirement in section 1115(c)(1) of
    ANGCRRA described in paragraph (9), together with the reason for each
    waiver:
          In fiscal year 2004, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
            the Army.
        11. The number of Army National Guard members, shown for each State
    (and the number of U.S. Army Reserve members), who were screened during
    the preceding fiscal year to determine whether they meet minimum
    physical profile standards required for deployment and, of those
    members: (a) the number and percentage who did not meet minimum
    physical profile standards required for deployment; and (b) the number
    and percentage who were transferred pursuant to section 1116 of ANGCRRA
    to the personnel accounting category described in paragraph (8):
          a. Screened during the preceding fiscal year to determine whether
            they meet minimum physical profile standards required for
            deployment:
            ARNG.--In fiscal year 2004, approximately 70,068 ARNG Soldiers
                underwent a physical. Of these personnel, 2,068, or 3
                percent, did not meet the minimum physical profile
                standards required for deployment.
            USAR.--In fiscal year 2004, approximately 20,864 USAR Soldiers
                underwent a retention physical. Of these, 2,086, or 10
                percent, were identified for review.
          b. The number and percentage that were transferred pursuant to
            section 1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting category
            described in paragraph (8):
            ARNG.--In fiscal year 2004 6,223 Soldiers were transferred from
                a deployable to a non-deployable status.
            USAR.--In fiscal year 2004 312 Soldiers, or less than 1 percent
                of the Army Reserve Selected Reserve, were transferred from
                a deployable to a non-deployable status.
        12. The number of members, and the percentage total membership, of
    the Army National Guard, shown for each State, who underwent a medical
    screening during the previous fiscal year as provided in section 1117
    of ANGCRRA:
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII, Section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
        13. The number of members, and the percentage of the total
    membership, of the Army National Guard, shown for each State, who
    underwent a dental screening during the previous fiscal year as
    provided in section 1117 of ANGCRRA:
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII, Section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
        14. The number of members, and the percentage of the total
    membership, of the Army National Guard, shown for each State, over the
    age of 40 who underwent a full physical examination during the previous
    fiscal year for purposes of section 1117 of ANGCRRA:
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII, Section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1117 of ANGCRRA.
        15. The number of units of the Army National Guard that are
    scheduled for early deployment in the event of a mobilization and, of
    those units, the number that are dentally ready for deployment in
    accordance with section 1118 of ANGCRRA:
          Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div. A, Title VII, Section
            704(b), February 10, 1996, repealed Section 1118 of ANGCRRA.
        16. The estimated post-mobilization training time for each Army
    National Guard combat unit (and U.S. Army Reserve Force Support Package
    (FSP) unit), and a description, displayed in broad categories and by
    State, of what training would need to be accomplished for Army National
    Guard combat units (and U.S. Army Reserve FSP units) in a post-
    mobilization period for purposes of section 1119 of ANGCRRA:
          a. ARNG.--Estimated time for post-mobilization training is
            reported through the Unit Status Report, is classified, and is
            maintained by the Department of the Army, G-3:
            Information on the type of training required by units during
                post- mobilization is maintained by U.S. Army Forces
                Command (FORSCOM) and the Continental United States Armies
                (CONUSAs).
            Post-mobilization training for enhanced Separate Brigades
                (eSB)/ARNG Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) can be categorized
                as maneuver, attack, defend, command and control, gunnery,
                NBC defense, and sustainment. Theater specific training
                requirements to include Antiterrorism (AT) and Force
                Protection (FP) training are also conducted during the
                post-mobilization training period.
          b. USAR.--To meet the on-going operational requirements of OIF
            and OEF, Army Reserve training is now based on a higher
            readiness requirement to meet the train-alert-mobilize deploy
            model, which reduces emphasis on post mobilization training.
            The Army Reserve force must be ready before mobilization. This
            change requires a new training strategy and increased resource
            requirements for additional individual and unit training:
            Army Reserve units with significant numbers of cross-leveled or
                Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Soldier fills require
                additional collective training time at the Mobilization
                Stations. Current mobilization timelines often do not allow
                for a Mission Rehearsal Exercise (MRE) for deploying combat
                support and combat service support (CS/CSS) units to the
                same standard as deploying combat units. However, these
                units receive home station training to compensate for this
                shortfall.
            To continue providing capabilities to support the Army in
                sustained joint and expeditionary operations and to provide
                predictability for Soldiers, families and employers, the
                Army Reserve is implementing the Army Reserve Expeditionary
                Force (AREF). Beginning in 2005, ten like-structured
                deployable organizations called Army Rotational
                Expeditionary Packages (AREPs) will be formed. Units in
                each AREP will plan to mobilize to deploy for up to twelve
                months once every five or six years. Unit capabilities and
                readiness within an AREP will be formally validated as it
                approaches the employment window. The Army Reserve will
                implement the AREF in 10 phases. As the Army Reserve
                transforms, early AREP rotations and their timelines will
                be condensed. As the concept is fully implemented, the
                rotations and their phases will become more distinct and
                sequential.
        17. A description of the measures taken during the preceding fiscal
    year to comply with the requirement in section 1120 of ANGCRRA to
    expand the use of simulations, simulators, and advanced training
    devices and technologies for members and units of the Army National
    Guard (and the U.S. Army Reserve):
          a. ARNG.--During the preceding fiscal year the ARNG made
            significant progress towards incorporating Training Aids,
            Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) as an integral
            part of its training strategy and supported numerous units at
            mobilization stations with virtual and constructive training
            tools. In addition, the ARNG training division teamed with the
            Army G3 to validate virtual maneuver simulators for the entire
            ARNG heavy force.
          The ARNG is fielding the Advanced Bradley Full-Crew Interactive
            Simulation Trainer (AB-FIST) that provides full crew precision
            gunnery for the M2 and M3 family of vehicles. The system
            underwent a rigorous Limited User Test (LUT) with the U.S. Army
            Infantry School (USAIS) and the Army Research Institute (ARI).
            In fiscal year 2004, the AB-FIST was approved by the USAIS
            Commanding General, as a training device that can be used for
            Bradley gunnery crew training in addition to the Conduct of
            Fire Trainer to meet established live fire prerequisites as
            outlined in DA PAM 350-38. To support maneuver training the
            ARNG is fielding updated Simulations Network (SIMNET) virtual
            maneuver simulators for the M1A1 and M2A2 vehicles. The
            upgraded SIMNET modules feature a new PC-based visual system,
            host computer, and a sound system. These tank and mechanized
            infantry platoon sets have upgraded After Action Review (AAR)
            stations.
          ARNG Battle Staff Trainers are being updated with the Army's
            latest approved Janus software versions. Janus software
            operates on portable PCs. The ARNG continues to procure new
            hardware to ensure these systems can operate the Objective One
            Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF) software when it is fielded in
            fiscal year 2007. Additionally, the Engagement Skills Trainer
            (EST 2000) continued to be fielded in fiscal year 2004. The EST
            2000 is the Army's approved collective marksmanship training
            device. EST 2000 is used by the ARNG to provide unit collective
            gunnery and tactical training for dismounted Infantry, Special
            Operations Forces, Scouts, Engineer, Military Police Squads,
            and Combat Support and Combat Service Support elements. These
            systems also support units conducting the homeland defense and
            airport security missions assigned to the ARNG.
          During fiscal year 2004, the ARNG experienced a significant
            increase in the number of Soldiers mobilized for OIF. The
            National Guard Bureau procured TADSS sets for deployment to
            mobilization sites such as Camp Shelby, MS, Fort Bliss, TX,
            Fort Hood, TX, and Fort Drum, NY. These sets consist of M1 and
            M2 precision gunnery training devices, rifle marksmanship
            trainers and other unit specific TADSS. Most importantly in
            fiscal year 2004, the ARNG led the way in the development of a
            Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer (VCCT) system. To keep costs low
            the ARNG required the contractor to leverage existing
            technology developed for the M1 and M2 virtual gunnery systems.
            The National Guard Bureau funded the procurement of convoy
            simulators that train tasks associated with the execution of a
            convoy. Soldiers train in the simulator prior to executing a
            convoy live fire exercise.
          Through the ARNG Distributed Battle Simulation Program (DBSP)
            commanders, staffs and Soldiers receive assistance from
            ``graybeard'' mentors and TADSS facilitators. DBSP is a
            contractor organization that provides trained and experienced
            civilians to ensure the ARNG is using all of the TADSS in a
            meaningful way to execute annual training requirements. DBSP
            battle staff training teams provide exercise support during the
            planning, preparation, and execution of computer-mediated
            battle staff training. This support augments the support
            provided by Training Support XXI Soldiers.
          b. USAR.--The Army Reserve has continued to work with the U.S.
            Army Infantry School and Army Training Support Command to
            incorporate the Laser Marksmanship Training System into a
            training strategy that supports initial entry and unit
            sustainment training. In 2004, Army Reserve efforts with
            Beamhit Corporation, makers of the laser training system,
            resulted in the development of full-scale laser targets that
            support convoy counter-ambush training. These targets permit
            the Army Reserve's use of current roads and buildings for
            greater realism in tactical marksmanship training. Soldiers can
            fire the lasers with blanks from moving vehicles while engaging
            targets that represent an ambush. Army Reserve units conduct
            this training at home station rather than waiting to arrive at
            mobilization stations:
            The Army Reserve also uses simulation devices like the EST 2000
                and the VCCT systems at consolidated training sites, to
                include mobilization stations. The Army Reserve has fielded
                seven EST 2000s and is working with proponents, such as the
                Military Police School, to leverage its use in MOS
                reclassification. The Army Reserve mobilized 73 small arms
                instructors to support CONUSA mobilization operations. At
                some mobilization stations, ammunition consumption dropped
                nearly 200 percent of Standards in Training Commission
                (STRAC) ammunition authorizations to 75 percent. A second
                mobilization of small arms instructors began in October
                2004.
        18. Summary tables of unit readiness, shown for each State, (and
    for the U.S. Army Reserve), and drawn from the unit readiness rating
    system as required by section 1121 of ANGCRRA, including the personnel
    readiness rating information and the equipment readiness assessment
    information required by that section, together with:
          a. Explanations of the information shown in the table:
            Unit readiness reporting information and summary tables are
                classified. This information is maintained by the
                Department of the Army, G-3.
          b. Based on the information shown in the tables, the Secretary's
            overall assessment of the deployability of units of the Army
            National Guard (and U.S. Army Reserve), including a discussion
            of personnel deficiencies and equipment shortfalls in
            accordance with such section 1121:
            Unit readiness summary tables and overall assessments are
                classified. Department of the Army, G-3, maintains this
                information.
        19. Summary tables, shown for each State (and the U.S. Army
    Reserve), of the results of inspections of units of the Army National
    Guard (and Army Reserve) by inspector general or other commissioned
    officers of the Regular Army under the provisions of Section 105 of
    Title 32, together with explanations of the information shown in the
    tables, and including display of (a) the number of such inspections;
    (b) identification of the entity conducting each inspection; (c) the
    number of units inspected; and (d) the overall results of such
    inspections, including the inspector's determination for each inspected
    unit of whether the unit met deployability standards and, for those
    units not meeting deployability standards, the reasons for such failure
    and the status of corrective actions. Summary tables depicting CONUSA
    inspection numbers by State for the ARNG and by Regional Readiness
    Command for the USAR units are available from U.S. Army, FORSCOM:
          a. ARNG.--During fiscal year 2004, ARNG State level Inspector
            General (IG) conducted extensive inspections throughout the
            United States. State level IGs conducted approximately 336
            inspections during the year, visiting 538 separate units.
            Because IG inspections focus on findings and recommendations,
            the units involved in these inspections were not provided with
            a pass/fail rating. Results of individual inspections conducted
            by an IG may be requested for release through the Inspector
            General of the Army. Operational Readiness Evaluation Data for
            FSP and eSBs is unavailable as these inspections were
            eliminated as requirements in 1997. Data available under the
            Training Assessment Model (TAM) relates to readiness levels and
            is generally not available in an unclassified format. TAM data
            is maintained at the State level and is available upon request
            from State level training readiness officials.
          b. USAR.--In accordance with AR 1-201, the United States Army
            Reserve Command (USARC) conducts inspections of Regional
            Readiness Commands (RRCs) and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs)
            within the USARC Organizational Inspection Program (OIP). USARC
            maintains the results of all OIPs. The OIP focuses on findings
            and recommendations. Units do not receive pass/fail ratings.
            During fiscal year 2004, five OIPs were scheduled, but none
            were conducted. Units were not inspected because of the high
            OIF/OEF OPTEMPO. However, the Army Reserve did conduct 12
            Battle Focus Readiness Reviews, which involved a review of over
            180 brigade and below units. The Army Reserve also conducted
            400 command inspections, which represents more than one-third
            of USAR units. U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) maintains the
            results of unit TAMs and the data for Reserve Component FSP
            unit inspections.
        20. A listing, for each Army National Guard combat unit (and U.S.
    Army Reserve FSP units) of the active duty combat units (and other
    units) associated with that Army National Guard (and U.S. Army Reserve)
    unit in accordance with section 1131(a) of ANGCRRA, shown by State, for
    each such Army National Guard unit (and for the U.S. Army Reserve) by:
    (A) the assessment of the commander of that associated active duty unit
    of the manpower, equipment, and training resource requirements of that
    National Guard (and Army Reserve) unit in accordance with section
    1131(b)(3) of the ANGCRRA; and (B) the results of the validation by the
    commander of that associated active duty unit of the compatibility of
    that National Guard (or U.S. Army Reserve) unit with active duty forces
    in accordance with section 1131(b)(4) of ANGCRRA.
        The listing described above is contained in FORSCOM Regulation 350-
    4-Active Component/Reserve Component Partnerships. Detailed assessments
    of specific RC units by associated active duty commanders are
    maintained within FORSCOM at the two CONUSAs and three CONUS-based
    corps. General comments of manpower, equipment and training resource
    requirements in accordance with ANGCRRA follow:
          a. ARNG.--For Army National Guard divisions and BCTs:
          -- Manpower.--Several BCTs have shortages in enlisted personnel
            and junior officers. Duty Military Occupational Specialty
            Qualification (DMOSQ) is a training challenge because Military
            Occupational Specialties (MOS) require extensive training,
            during a limited training window, in schools that are often
            taught simultaneously. Within the BCTs, Full-Time Support (FTS)
            continues to be a challenge, currently filled at approximately
            55 percent of requirements. In ARNG divisions, recent force
            structure changes and rebalancing actions are causing short-
            term shortfalls in fill percentages.
          -- Equipment.--The Army is making extraordinary efforts to fully
            equip all units deploying to theater in terms of vehicles,
            weapons, communications, force protection equipment and other
            areas. However, the lack of modernized equipment continues to
            hamper the BCTs. Shortages in chemical defense equipment and
            night vision devices limit the full range of capabilities for
            training of the BCTs. The BCTs continue to receive the bulk of
            any new equipment fielded to the ARNG.
          -- Training.--Adequate training resources in fiscal year 2004
            enabled BCTs to sustain platoon pre-mobilization training
            proficiency. Distances to crew-served weapons ranges and the
            availability of adequate maneuver areas continue to challenge
            most units. Virtual and constructive simulation systems combine
            with live training to provide multi-echelon collective
            proficiency.
          b. USAR.--Within the Army Reserve, use of the Force Support
            Package (FSP) unit model is in the process of being replaced by
            the Army Reserve Expeditionary Packages (AREP) force management
            model:
          -- Manpower.--The Army Reserve is continuing to improve its
            operations and training management by building FTS manning as a
            result of the Congressionally approved Active Guard/Reserve
            (AGR) and Military Technician (MILTECH) ramps. However,
            sustaining DMOSQ is impacted in some cases by limited school
            spaces that are based on class size and student to instructor
            ratio (2:1 for some course phases). To address this situation,
            Army Reserve schools have begun to mobilize qualified Army
            Reserve instructors to teach only in RC schools. The Army
            Reserve is also starting to accelerate the conduct of courses
            and use web-based training whenever feasible. Some MOSs require
            extensive training, for example 15N, 25B, 45G, 91W, and 97B,
            and sequential schools require a Soldier's absence from their
            civilian employment for extended periods.
          -- Equipment.--Prior to September 11, the Army's strategic
            investment decisions were based on a prevailing view that, in
            the absence of a peer competitor, risk could be accepted in
            numerous areas of procurement for the Current Force to
            facilitate substantial investment in the Future Force. The
            impact of these decisions has been evidenced across all
            components. In the case of the Army Reserve, this has resulted
            in not fully fielding force modernization equipment. Today, the
            Army Reserve has approximately 78 percent of its authorized end
            items. New procurement and cascading of older equipment from
            the Active Component (AC) is only keeping pace with battle
            losses and attrition. The shortage of modern equipment and the
            retention of obsolete and obsolescent items to maintain
            equipment on-hand readiness have begun to adversely impact the
            Army Reserve's ability to continue to support the Army's
            sustained joint and expeditionary operations.
               Today almost 76 percent of on-hand Army Reserve equipment is
            deployed, mobilizing, demobilizing or assigned as ``Stay Behind
            Equipment'' (SBE) in theater. Replacement of SBE for the Army
            Reserve is an immediate force multiplier for the Army. The Army
            Reserve continues to support subsequent OIF/OEF rotations and
            other requirements by using assets from its stateside-based
            institutional training structure. Much of the equipment
            returning from OIF/OEF has rapidly expended its service life
            under combat conditions and must be replaced. The concept of a
            transformed, modular Army of ``plug and play'' units demands
            that all units, regardless of component, be equipped to the
            same levels and with compatible and interoperable systems.
            Current Army procurement planning, with the assistance of
            Congressionally directed procurement within the Total
            Obligation Authority and the National Guard and Reserve
            Equipment Appropriations (NGREA), are the keys to achieve this
            goal.
          -- Training.--Some Equipment Readiness Code-A (ERC-A) equipment
            shortages inhibit effective training. High levels of SBE and
            backlogs at reconstitution and depot sites further exacerbate
            the problem. Army Reserve units often have a significantly
            older generation of equipment on which to train. Units will
            require additional training time after mobilization to achieve
            proficiency on collective tasks, especially if modernization
            equipment is provided after mobilization.
        The results of the validation by the commander of that associated
    active duty unit of the compatibility of that National Guard (or U.S.
    Army Reserve) unit with active duty forces in accordance with ANGCRRA
    are maintained by the Department of the Army, G-3. General comment
    follows:
        For ARNG divisions, BCTs, ARNG Force Support Package (FSP) Units
    and Army Reserve FSP Units: Lack of Force Modernization equipment
    within the Reserve Component (RC) is the foremost AC compatibility
    issue. Until the RC units are modernized and supported at the same
    level as the AC units, most RC units will not be fully compatible with
    AC units until after mobilization. Decreased mobilization to deployment
    and/or employment timelines makes it imperative that RC units be
    modernized and equipped at the same level as the Active Component prior
    to mobilization. As Modified Tables of Organization and Equipment in
    units are updated and unit reorganization continues, the compatibility
    issue will improve.
        21. A specification of the active duty personnel assigned to units
    of the Selected Reserve pursuant to section 414(c) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (10 U.S. Code
    261 note), shown (A) by State for the Army National Guard (and for the
    U.S. Army Reserve), (B) by rank of officers, warrant officers, and
    enlisted members assigned, and (C) by unit or other organizational
    entity of assignment:
          As of September 30, 2004, the Army had 4756 Active Component
            Soldiers assigned to Title XI positions. The Army goal is 100
            percent of the total (officer and enlisted authorizations)
            5,000 personnel authorized for the AC/RC Program. Although
            constrained by ongoing support to the Global War on Terror, the
            Active Army is maintaining AC/RC program strength and plans to
            maintain not less than an aggregate strength level of 90
            percent (officer and NCO) during the fiscal year 2005 period as
            addressed in the fiscal year 2005 NDAA. Army G-1 and U.S. Army
            Human Resources Command carefully tracks fill of Title XI
            positions (See Figure A-3).

                    TITLE XI FISCAL YEAR 2004 AUTHORIZATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Enlisted   Warrant
                                   Officers   Soldiers   Officers    Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PERSCOM.....................  .........          5  .........          5
    USAR........................         39        332          2        371
    TRADOC......................        110        275  .........        385
    FORSCOM.....................      1,428      2,471        153      3,899
    GFR.........................  .........          2  .........          2
    USARPAC.....................         32         62          1         94
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total.................      1,609      3,147        156      4,756
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Figure A-3

                                    ACRONYMS

    AAR--After Action Review
    AB-FIST--Advanced Bradley Full-Crew Interactive Simulation Trainer
    AC--Active Component
    AGR--Active Guard and Reserve
    ANGCRRA--Army National Guard Combat Readiness Reform Act
    AREF--Army Reserve Expeditionary Force
    AREPs--Army Rotational Expeditionary Packages
    ARNG--Army National Guard
    ASE--Aircraft Survivability Equipment
    ASV--Armored Security Vehicle
    AT--Antiterrorism
    BCT--Brigade Combat Team
    BRAT--Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles
    CH--Cargo Helicopter
    CONUSAs--Continental United States Armies
    COTS--Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
    CS/CSS--Combat Support and Combat Service Support
    CTC--Combat Training Center
    DBSP--Distributed Battle Simulation Program
    DMOSQ--Duty Military Occupational Specialty Qualification
    DOD--Department of Defense
    DRUs--Direct Reporting Units
    DS\3\--Disabled Soldier Support System
    ERC--Equipment Readiness Code
    eSB--enhanced Separate Brigades
    EST 2000--Engagement Skills Trainer 2000
    FCS--Future Combat Systems
    FORSCOM--U.S. Army Forces Command
    FP--Force Protection
    FSP--Force Support Package
    FTS--Full-Time Support
    GFR--Ground Forces Readiness
    HMMWV--High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
    IED--Improvised Explosive Device
    IET--Initial Entry Training
    IG--Inspector General
    IRR--Individual Ready Reserve
    JNTC--Joint National Training Capability
    LMTS--Laser Marksmanship Training System
    LUT--Limited User Test
    MILTECH--Military Technician
    MOS--Military Occupational Specialties
    MRE--Mission Rehearsal Exercise
    NBC--Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
    NCO--Noncommissioned Officer
    NDAA--National Defense Authorization Act
    NGB--National Guard Bureau
    NGREA--National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriations
    OEF--Operation Enduring Freedom
    OIF--Operation Iraqi Freedom
    OIP--Organizational Inspection Program
    OneSAF--Objective One Semi-Automated Forces
    OPTEMPO--Operational Tempo
    PERSCOM--Personnel Command
    RC--Reserve Component
    REF--Rapid Equipping Force
    RFI--Rapid Fielding Initiative
    ROTC--Reserve Officer Training Corps
    RRCs--Regional Readiness Commands
    SBE--Stay Behind Equipment
    SIMNET--Simulations Network
    STRAC--Standards in Training Commission
    TADSS--Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations
    TAM--Training Assessment Model
    TRADOC--Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Army
    UA--Unit of Action
    UAV--Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
    UH--Utility Helicopter
    U.S.--United States
    USAIS--U.S. Army Infantry School
    USAR--United States Army Reserve
    USARC--United States Army Reserve Command
    USARPAC--U.S. Army Pacific Command
    VCCT--Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer
    WMD--Weapons of Mass Destruction

        Senator Stevens. General, thank you very much. We're
    pleased to have that further explanation on these soldiers'
    background.
        Mr. Secretary, we welcome Mrs. Harvey. I see she's
    sitting----
        Secretary Harvey. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. Behind you, and we're pleased
    to have her with us today.
        I also want to call attention to the fact that, from the
    Guard and Reserve, we had Lieutenant General Steve Blum, Chief
    of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Roger Schultz,
    who's Director of the Army National Guard, Lieutenant General
    James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve.
        And let me welcome Senator Mikulski. I did so in her
    absence, but she has joined our subcommittee. We have served
    with her for many years on the full committee, and are
    delighted that she has come to this subcommittee.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
    forward to an active service here. Reporting for duty.
        Senator Stevens. It is welcome duty. Having been whip for 8
    years, I understand, Senator Durbin, you have duty on the floor
    and would like to be recognized. We're pleased to recognize you
    first.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
    want to thank Senator Inouye, as well, for giving me this
    opportunity, since I have to be on the floor in a few moments.
        Before I ask my questions, let me just say thank you. Thank
    you to the Secretary, thanks to all of the men and women in
    uniform, and those who--their families and others who support
    them. You make us proud. All of your service is--we'll never be
    able to repay. The best we can do is to say that we're going to
    stand behind you. I think you're going to find that in this
    appropriation bill, both political parties. It is nonpartisan.
        I also want to say that I've been out to Walter Reed
    several times. I've met with some of the fine men and women out
    there who have been injured in combat, and those who are
    treating them. And it is a great facility. I always ask them,
    ``Is there anything I can do for the Illinois soldiers, in
    particular?'' And they say, ``They're taking care of us.'' They
    never ask me for anything, which is a good indication.

                                FORCE PROTECTION

        But for one thing, Mr. Secretary, and that was--one of the
    first visits out there, one of the soldiers said, ``You've got
    to do something about these Humvees.'' And that goes way back,
    1\1/2\ years ago. He said, ``There's just not enough protection
    on those Humvees.'' Well, that's become a major national issue,
    and many of the amputees and soldiers who have been injured,
    unfortunately, were in Humvees that were not protected. And
    they were subject to rocket-propelled grenades and these
    roadside bombs and--which still harass our troops and endanger
    them. I'm glad we're moving forward on that.
        The same complaint came about body armor. Many troops did
    not have them. A friend of mine, with a son in active military
    ended up collecting the money, paying for it himself, sending
    the body armor out to his son. He said, ``I just can't wait any
    longer. I've got to do this.''

                                  TOURNIQUETS

        Now there's a new issue, Mr. Secretary, and there's one--
    it's so simple and basic that I really--I've got to ask you to
    address it. And you may have seen it in the Baltimore Sun on
    Sunday. They did a lengthy piece on the whole question of
    tourniquets and whether that would be standard-issue to our
    soldiers.
        Now, I think everyone agrees that having a tourniquet ready
    and available at a moment's notice is essential in combat, to
    save lives, particularly bleeding from the extremities. Long
    before the--well, at least before the invasion of Iraq, we said
    that this should be standard-issue. Again this year, the issue
    came up, as well.
        This report from the Baltimore Sun, which I know Senator
    Mikulski is well acquainted with, goes through all of the units
    of the military that currently are given tourniquets, these $20
    tourniquets, as standard-issue: Army Rangers, Special Op
    troops, 82nd Airborne, 3rd Infantry, all marines--all carrying
    tourniquets. And yet when the survey was made of other groups,
    particularly Guard and Reserve activated groups, it was found
    that this basic $20 piece of equipment wasn't being issued to
    the soldiers. And your experts on medical treatment and making
    certain that we save lives have said this is an essential part
    of equipment.
        When the Pentagon was asked, ``Why haven't you issued
    tourniquets if they're readily available and so cheap?''
    someone in the Pentagon said, ``Because we're in the midst of
    designing a pouch to carry them in.'' I hope that's not
    accurate.
        I would like to have you, Mr. Secretary, tell me if you are
    familiar with this problem, whether you could tell us how many
    of our soldiers today in Iraq carry with them, as standard-
    issue, a tourniquet, and, if not all of them, how quickly we'll
    be able to provide this life-saving piece of equipment.
        Secretary Harvey. Yes, Senator, good question. I, like you,
    am very concerned. Soldier protection, force protection,
    quality of life of the soldiers, nothing is more important to
    me than that. As I've said on several occasions, providing for
    the well-being of the soldiers and their families is my number
    one priority.
        I am generally familiar with this issue. It came up in a
    hearing a couple of weeks ago in the--in terms of whether we
    issue our soldiers something called QuickClot, which is issued
    to the marines. And I looked into that and have found out that
    this QuickClot is--can have some side effects, in terms of
    burns and in clotting outside the wound itself. I'm informed
    that we issue a pressure bandage--it is an Israeli-designed
    pressure bandage--to our soldiers.
        So I can't give you the exact numbers, but it's--I'm under
    the opinion that we issue this pressure bandage to all our
    soldiers. The Chief may want to comment on that.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, this is not a pressure
    bandage. I'm talking about a tourniquet. And a pressure
    bandage, even if it's standard-issue, or a clotting bandage,
    will not be adequate to deal with bleeding from an extremity.
    And if you read the story, and I'm going to send it to make
    sure you----
        Secretary Harvey. Yeah, I've perused it, yes.
        Senator Durbin. I hope you'll get a chance to look at it.
    They make it clear that, sadly, we've lost some soldiers
    because there was no place to turn for a tourniquet, a basic
    tourniquet, which is an element of first aid.
        Let me give you an example. One of the lieutenants in the
    Army, David Bernstein, who is noted in this article, bled to
    death. A West Point graduate. As Senator Mikulski adds here,
    they couldn't find anything to use as a tourniquet. They used a
    sling from an M-4 rifle, and the nozzle from a fuel can to
    twist it, to try to stop the bleeding. Sadly, he lost his life
    because a $20 basic tourniquet was not provided.
        So your response about pressure bandages and clotting
    bandages, those will not do. This article makes it clear, they
    are not responsive to the need when you have this severe trauma
    and bleeding from the extremities. And so, I hope that you will
    look very closely at this. I think it's a critical--an
    inexpensive element to save the lives of our soldiers here.
        I don't know if--General Schoomaker, if you've had
    familiarity with this.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, first of all, I'm not familiar
    with the article at all. Quite frankly, your bringing it up
    here is the first time I've heard of any problem like that.
    We've had tourniquets in the Army for almost all of my 36 years
    of service.
        Senator Durbin. Are they standard-issue to every soldier?
        General Schoomaker. They are standard in the medical
    channels. There have been improvements in the tourniquets.
    Typically, in the old days, we would carry cravats, which we
    used as tourniquets, which were standard-issue. There have
    been, since then, a variety of--the one-handed tourniquet that
    has come up more recently--there have been a variety of them,
    and I have known of no shortage of them. But this is something
    we could get into and certainly----
        Senator Durbin. General, I am told they are not standard-
    issue, that they are affordable, that what is presently being
    given to soldiers does not really fit----
        General Schoomaker. Typically----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. The need.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Typically, medical gear
    like this is not issued as part of a soldier's--what we would
    call organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE).
    It is--comes through medical channels. It's typically a unit
    standard-operating-procedure problem, and the unit generally
    will dictate what medical gear a soldier will have. And I see
    no reason why there is any shortage. And certainly
    affordability is not at issue.
        Senator Durbin. Affordability is not an issue.
        Secretary Harvey. For sure. We'll get you a detailed answer
    for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                  Tourniquets

        All Soldiers receive training on use of tourniquets upon
    initial entry into the Army, and sustained training and testing
    through the Soldier Common Task Test. Training is imperative
    for effective tourniquet application. Effective April 1, 2005,
    all new Soldiers will receive specific training on the new-
    generation Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT) in Basic Combat
    Training.
        Every Soldier now carries a first aid pouch with a first
    aid dressing for use as a pressure dressing and tourniquet.
    Under current practice, all Combat Medics (military
    occupational specialty (MOS) 91W), and Combat Lifesavers (CLS)
    will carry new-generation tourniquets; however, new-generation
    tourniquet fielding to these Soldiers is not complete. (The
    target ratio of CLS to Soldiers in deploying units is one per
    squad or better.)
        Between March 2003 and March 2005, the U.S. Army Medical
    Materiel Center-Southwest Asia (USAMMC-SWA) issued 58,163 new-
    generation tourniquets (four types) to CENTCOM-deployed units.
    Medical authorities in theater estimate 41 percent of deployed
    Soldiers have an approved tourniquet.
        The Defense Logistics Agency ordered 172,000 CATs in mid-
    March 2005. Initial delivery of 15,000 CATs will be mid-April
    2005, with the entire 172,000 delivered to theater by mid-July
    2005. On March 31, 2005, the Army directed the USAMMC-SWA to
    order 56,000 Special Operating Forces--Tactical Tourniquets
    (SOFTT) for delivery before May 31, 2005.
        The new Soldier Improved First Aid Kit (IFAK) includes a
    CAT and is being fast-tracked via the Soldier as a System Rapid
    Fielding Initiative.
        The U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR)
    recently tested nine new-generation tourniquet systems and
    demonstrated that three were 100 percent effective. Based on
    these data, the CAT was selected as the tourniquet to be issued
    to individual Soldiers. USAISR recommended the SOFTT as an
    acceptable alternative to the CAT when the CAT was not
    available through the supply system. USAISR also recommended
    the emergency medical tourniquet for use in medical evacuation
    vehicles and at Echelon I-III medical facilities.

        Senator Durbin. Well, if you would--the fact that the
    Rangers, Special Ops, some divisions, like 82nd Airborne, 3rd
    Infantry, and the marines all carry it as standard-issue, I
    think, is a clear indication that----
        General Schoomaker. I will promise----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. It could help----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. You that the most combat--
    the most combat-experienced soldiers and marines and special
    operators don't go into battle without these kinds of things.
        Senator Durbin. On themselves, individually?
        General Schoomaker. On themselves, individually. This is
    something that experience will tell you. This isn't something
    you wait for the system to give you. This is something you
    requisition through medical channels, because you have the
    experience, the knowledge, the training, and the readiness----
        Senator Durbin. And you will give----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. To understand you need it.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. You will give me a report on
    how many soldiers----
        General Schoomaker. We will be glad to.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Currently----
        General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. In Iraq and Afghanistan----
        General Schoomaker. And we----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Carry tourniquets?
        General Schoomaker. There is no reason why there should be
    any shortage in any unit of that kind of----
        Senator Durbin. There is no reason why there should be.
        Secretary Harvey. No. No.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator, I'm constrained to say that when
    I was in the Army, they told us to take off our belt and take a
    knife in a sheath and use it to make a tourniquet immediately.
        General Schoomaker. Exactly right.
        Senator Stevens. It's one of those things.
        I note that the chairman is here, and I know he has other
    subcommittees to go. Remember when he used to yield to me? I
    would be pleased to yield to you.
        Senator Cochran. I'll wait my turn, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Secretary Harvey, what are the problems in our recruiting
    efforts? I think most of us are thinking about the problems of
    recruiting and retention--in the Army, in particular; and in
    the Guard and Reserve, as well. We seem to have a--you know,
    we--I'm told we exceeded the goal for the Army last year. And
    the goal this year is 100 percent retention. How are you doing?
        Secretary Harvey. In terms of retention, Senator, we're
    just about on our goals. Retention in the Active is 99 percent
    of goal--these are our year-to-date goals--97 for the Reserves,
    and 98 for the Guard. So, from a retention point of view, I
    think we're okay. And, as we like to say, I think we're on our
    mission for the year.
        Our challenge is in recruiting, and the Chief and I are
    both concerned about that. I don't think we're in crisis, but
    we're concerned about it. At the current time, we're at 94
    percent of our goal in the Active, 90 percent in Reserves, and
    the problem area is the National Guard, which is at 74 percent.
        Now, in response to that, we're taking the following
    actions. We're increasing the number of recruiters across the
    board, in all three areas, from 9,000 total to 12,000. We're
    increasing incentives--retention incentives, recruiting
    incentives--across the board for all three components. And, as
    you may know, we take surveys every month to ensure that the--
    as we call them, ``the influencers'' are satisfied, and what
    the influencers are thinking; and that's the parents and
    coaches and counselors and so forth.
        So, it's a concern with us. I'm not going to sit here and
    tell you that we're 100 percent sure we're going to make it.
    And I'm also not going to sit here and tell you--we're not
    going to give up. We are going to put a lot of emphasis and
    focus on this area. I give it a lot of thought. And when
    someone says, ``Well, you put the recruiters''--the recruiters
    are like drilling the oil well. You say, ``I've got more
    recruiters there, now they have to strike oil.'' And we have
    another 6 months to go in the mission. And, believe me, as I
    said, we're very concerned about it. We put a lot of emphasis
    and focus and attention to it. And I meet every other week with
    our human resource people to ensure that we're doing everything
    we need to do and our message is getting across. And we do a
    lot of innovative things, like we sponsor National Association
    for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), dragsters, rodeos, and so
    forth. So we're very focused in this area, and I think the
    takeaway is that it's important, and we're doing everything
    possible to attain our goals.
        And let me note that, this year, our goal in the Active
    component is to recruit 80,000 soldiers. Last year, it started
    at 72,000; it was revised in the middle of the year to 77,000,
    which we made; and the year before that was 68,000. So, our
    goals have gone up, and our focus and initiatives and
    activities have gone up accordingly.
        Senator Stevens. General Schoomaker, have we given you
    enough tools to succeed, in terms of recruiting?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, tools--the tools you have given us
    are more than satisfactory. You've been very supportive in the
    tools. I think the Secretary has it exactly right, retention
    does not appear to be as big a challenge as recruiting. We are
    retaining soldiers. This is counter to many of the stories you
    hear, that the Guard and the Reserve and Active soldiers will
    not stay with us. They are staying with us, in increasing
    numbers.
        But I will tell you, I am personally concerned about
    recruiting. And I think that recruiting this year is going to
    be tough to make our challenge, our increased goals. And I
    think in 2006 it'll be even tougher. And so, we are going to
    have to look very hard at the tools, at our procedures, at our
    approaches. But, as I've testified before, I believe this is a
    national responsibility. This isn't just the responsibility of
    the Army and the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Navy to
    recruit soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It is a
    responsibility of the Nation to raise the armies and the navies
    and the air forces and the marines that are necessary to defend
    this country. And I think until people embrace this challenge
    as a national responsibility and necessity, that we will be
    challenged when we're in periods of conflict, as we are today.

                               ARMY MODULAR FORCE

        Senator Stevens. I'm going to ask one of the staff to turn
    this soldier's photo around and show it to the people out in
    the audience. I'm constrained to say that when I went into the
    service, I weighed 155 pounds. And I think Senator Inouye
    weighed just about the same amount. I think that fellow's got
    on his back more than I weighed then.
        Secretary Harvey. He does. It's 150 pounds. That's a
    picture that I--that the Chief gave to me that I have in my
    office. I look at that every morning, and I think, ``How am I
    going to lighten that soldier's load?''
        Senator Stevens. That's what I was going to ask.
        Secretary Harvey. Yes. Yes. And we're--and we think about
    that often. And we're going to do it several ways, one of which
    is, as you heard, the Army modular force. We're going to be
    able to deploy to an area as a unit, not as a group of
    individuals, and that's going to help reduce that load.
        Another way we're going to do that is through information
    technology and situational awareness, where, as I mentioned in
    my opening statement, one of the advantages of the Army modular
    force initiative is that we can start now to spiral in network
    technologies so that all soldiers have better situational
    awareness, so he doesn't have to take everything he has to
    take----
        Senator Stevens. My time----
        Secretary Harvey [continuing]. Because he knows----
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. Is running out, Mr.
    Secretary. But when we went to the Stanford Research Institute,
    they were devising a vest that would really--a shirt that would
    be both armor and have a built-in battery and have a built-in--
    a whole series of things that are there now.
        Secretary Harvey. We have a program executive officer (PEO)
    soldier. The Chief----
        Senator Stevens. Are we going to any innovation to try and
    lighten that load?
        Secretary Harvey. Yes. Chief?
        General Schoomaker. Sure we are. First of all--and I don't
    mean to be facetious here, but that's 150 pounds of lightweight
    gear.
        Senator Stevens. I understand that.
        General Schoomaker. That is----
        Senator Stevens. I saw some----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. That is all the most
    advanced stuff that we can put on them. But I'll give you a
    historical example. When the 82nd Airborne Division and the
    101st Airborne Division jumped behind the lines on the night of
    June 5-6, 1944, when those paratroopers jumped behind the
    lines, they carried 80 rounds of ammunition and two hand
    grenades, a change of socks, and a protective mask. And when
    they got on the ground, they got rid of their protective mask.
    Those soldiers went into combat totally--equipped totally
    differently than these soldiers are today.
        This picture that you see there is a paratrooper in the
    173rd Airborne Brigade that jumped into Northern Iraq. That's
    the morning the Sun rose, and they're stuck up there in the mud
    with all that stuff on their back in Northern Iraq with--you
    know, basically alone and unafraid, not unlike their
    forefathers did in World War II. And they're extraordinarily
    equipped. The problem is that we've got to get the mobility of
    these soldiers, and we've got to get the interdependence of it
    that we're working on so hard with the other services to
    lighten this load. But we also have a responsibility to lighten
    this load in a different way, and that is by taking----
        Senator Stevens. I think we ought to have a copy of that
    for our office here, too, because----
        General Schoomaker. Sure.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. It worries me.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        If I may----
        Senator Stevens. Sorry to interrupt you, General, we do
    have some time restraints here.
        General Schoomaker. Sure.
        Senator Inouye. If I may follow up on the chairman's
    questioning, are you considering lowering the entry standards
    on recruiting?

                              ENLISTMENT STANDARDS

        General Schoomaker. Sir, we are not considering it, and we
    have not done it. Now, we are bumping up against our standard,
    but we have not crossed the line on our standards. And I can
    describe what they are, or I can get them to you for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

                              Enlistment Standards

        The Army is currently not considering lowering its quality
    marks. The fiscal year 2005 Army quality goals are  90 percent
    high school diploma graduates,  67 percent test score category
    I-IIIA, and  2 percent test score category IV. The active
    Army's quality marks remain above Army goals. As of the end of
    March, they were at 90 percent high school diploma graduate, 74
    percent test score category I-IIIA, and 1.9 percent test score
    category IV.

        General Schoomaker. But the things that you are reading are
    largely untrue about us lowering standards. And I hope that we
    do not have to lower our standards. In fact, I would prefer not
    to. I'd rather go short than lower the standards that we have.
        Senator Inouye. We have been advised that there is a $285
    million shortfall for recruiting. Can you tell us why?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I'm not familiar with that.
        Secretary Harvey. No, I'm not familiar with that, Senator.
    We certainly will ask for everything we need in that regard. As
    remarked, it's critical to the all-volunteer force.

                      IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES (IED'S)

        Senator Inouye. Of the 1,500 soldiers killed during the
    operations, 800 were killed by improvised explosive devices. Do
    we have enough funding here to take care of that?
        Secretary Harvey. Yes. I've--let me answer it, that I've
    been assured and informed that we have adequate funds at the
    present time to meet the theater requirements, we have adequate
    funds to do--to fund our technology-development efforts, to
    field the next-generation devices, and that we will be
    rapidly--over the next few months, rapidly fielding a number of
    devices. And we can fill you in on those details, of course, in
    a closed session, if you would like. But I'm assured that we
    have adequate funding. I'm assured that the next-generation
    technology is rapidly maturing. And I will be--and I have, and
    will be, paying very close attention to this. As you remarked,
    that's an important component of soldier protection.
        Senator Inouye. Isn't it also true that no matter how much
    we try, it will not be possible to come up with a perfect
    solution, especially when they use something like a 2,000
    bomb--a 2,000-pound bomb to knock over a tank?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, there is no one solution to this
    dilemma. And, as you know, we have had M-1 tanks totally
    destroyed by thousand pound bombs on the roads. There is the
    ability to get a big enough bomb to destroy any amount of armor
    we'll place. However, there is a prudent level of protection
    that we believe we've asked for the funding to achieve and that
    we're working to obtain. A great deal of this has to do with
    tactics, techniques, and procedures, and experience,
    intelligence, and other kinds of capabilities, obviously that
    we probably shouldn't talk about in an open session. But it is
    a comprehensive approach that must be taken to counter this
    threat, and not just the idea that some--in some physical form,
    that we're going to be able to mitigate the effects of what's
    achievable.

                                    OPTEMPO

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, will the modular units
    lessen the operational tempo for the Army; thereby, reducing
    the number and length of deployments that we are now
    experiencing?
        Secretary Harvey. Yes. The objective is, at the end of the
    modular initiative, when it's totally complete, that the Active
    force will be deployed 1 year in 3. So that's 2 years at home
    station, or, as we like to call it, ``dwell time.'' For the
    National Guard, it'll be 1 year deployed, 5 years at home
    station; and for the Reserves, 1 year deployed and 4 years at
    home station. So that's our objective, and we're slowly but
    surely migrating toward that.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, if I could add to that very
    quickly. Last year, our average dwell was 1.2 years for the
    units that were coming from theater and going back. This year,
    as you take a look at the 101st and the 4th Infantry Division
    (ID), the 3rd ID, if they're--stay on schedule, their dwell
    will be about 1.8 years, on average, some of it a little bit
    longer than that. And this is directly related to the increase
    in these brigades--the brigades that we have added to the Army
    that have allowed us a broader base of rotation.
        And as we achieve the 30 percent increase on the Active
    side, and the modular initiatives on the Guard and Reserve
    side, this will continue to manifest into the kinds of dwell
    times that the Secretary described.
        Senator Inouye. The funding for modularity is included in
    the supplemental. How much of the $5 billion would you have in
    the 2006 budget?

                         FUNDING THE ARMY MODULAR FORCE

        Secretary Harvey. The funding for modularity is in the
    supplemental in 2005, and plans to be in the supplemental in
    2006. Then it will be in the base budget in 2007 beyond, the
    rest of the FYDP.
        Senator Inouye. Do you have any estimate as to the total
    cost of it?
        Secretary Harvey. Yes. The total cost, if you add it all up
    from 2005 through 2011, it's $48 billion. And, again, $10
    billion in the 2005 and 2006 supplementals, and then the
    remainder in the base budget in 2007 to 2011.
        Senator Inouye. When you're completed, you'll have 77
    brigade combat units?
        Secretary Harvey. Seventy-seven Brigade Combat Team Units
    of Action, correct, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. I'm from the ancient war. Can you describe
    what a brigade unit will look like?
        Secretary Harvey. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
    it'll be a unit of about 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. There will be
    three types of units in the near term. There will be a light
    infantry, heavy, and a Stryker. They'll be standalone, self-
    sufficient, and have all the functionality that used to--a lot
    of the functionality that used to reside in the division now is
    embedded in the Brigade Combat Team; therefore, it is
    standalone and self-sufficient. An important dimension, as we--
    as I said, is standardized. That is to say--and the Chief can
    chime in here, because he's had direct experience in this--and
    that is that there was no heavy brigade or no light brigade in
    the force that was like any other one. In this, we'll have--a
    Brigade Combat Team, say, in the 3rd ID will be exactly the
    same as in every infantry.
        Chief, you my want to chime in.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I would agree. The kinds of things
    that'll be in these modular brigades are things like increased
    military intelligence, increased bandwidth to move intelligence
    down to these brigade levels. You'll have your forward support
    battalions, which provide your logistics in the brigade--civil
    affairs, human intelligence (HUMINT), counterintelligence,
    military police (MPs), engineers, their own artillery
    battalion, as well as their own RSTA, which is reconnaissance,
    surveillance, target acquisition capability, inside of these
    brigades.
        But I have to mention, we always focus on the combat
    brigades, but the modular force also--which we don't talk
    about, but is involved in this very same money--are the support
    units of action that are outside these brigades that provide
    the enhanced capabilities, in terms of aviation, increased
    higher-level logistics and maintenance, intelligence, et
    cetera, and then on the Army Guard--or in the Army Reserve side
    or the combat service support aspects, with the expeditionary
    packages that we're putting together.
        So, it's not just at the brigade. It's at the battle
    command level, it's at the support level, all the way up where
    we are building a modular force that can plug and play based
    upon what we have to do. It's much more capable.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

        FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR MOBILIZATION STATIONS

        Mr. Secretary, I notice in the supplemental budget request
    that's been submitted by the Army, you've requested $70 million
    to construct permanent barracks as part of a new operational
    readiness training complex need to meet the requirements of
    mobilizing Reserve-component units. My question is, Is any of
    this money going to be used to upgrade or improve mobilization
    centers for the National Guard in connection with the
    mobilization for Iraq and Afghanistan duties?
        Secretary Harvey. Senator, I think I'm going to have to
    take that for the record.
        I'm not familiar with that level of detail of exactly what
    that's going to be used for. It wouldn't surprise me if there's
    monies in there to improve our readiness centers.
        Senator Cochran. General Schoomaker----
        Secretary Harvey. We'll get you an answer----
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. General Schoomaker, do you
    have any information along that line?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I don't have that level of detail,
    and I think it would be better for us to provide it to you
    accurately for the record.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        General Schoomaker. I've just glanced over here at our
    Guard leadership, and they also do not have that level of
    detail.
        Senator Cochran. If we could have that, we would appreciate
    it.
        [The information follows:]

     Funding in the Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Request for Mobilization
                             and Training Barracks

        The fiscal year 2005 Supplemental includes $70 million in
    military construction for Mobilization and Training Barracks at
    Forts Carson, Riley, and Bliss. There is an immediate need for
    adequate facilities to support active and Reserve Component
    (approximately 80 percent) mobilization, training, deployment,
    and demobilization. These projects will directly support Army
    National Guard and Army Reserve Soldiers mobilized for the
    Global War on Terrorism. The Army National Guard has training
    and mobilization facilities in their fiscal year Defense
    Program for two of their power support platforms: Camp Shelby,
    Mississippi and Gowen Field, Idaho.

        Senator Cochran. The House is taking up the supplemental,
    as you know, and marking it up in their committee. And we are
    not going to take any action on it until they complete work on
    the bill. But we are going to look at it very carefully. We
    know that we need to supplement the budget for this fiscal year
    in connection with our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We
    want to help the administration achieve its goals of total
    support for our military forces so that they have what they
    need to bring this war to a successful conclusion. That's the
    goal, and I know that's your goal, too.
        In that context, a lot of National Guard units are being
    mobilized around the country. And in my State, at Camp Shelby,
    Mississippi, that facility has been designated as a
    mobilization center. And so, we've seen the 155th Armored
    Brigade from our State trained there and brought up to speed
    and deployed to the theaters. And there are other units, as
    well. It is a facility that's been in operation since World War
    II. As a matter of fact, Senator Inouye trained there when he
    was in the Army and just getting ready to be deployed to the
    European theater. And it's continued to have a rich tradition
    of training--excellent training and schools for both enlisted
    and officers.
        My son trained down there, as a matter of fact. And when
    that same unit was mobilized in Operation Desert Shield/Desert
    Storm, he trained there and went to Fort Hood, then on to the
    National Training Center. So we know how important the training
    is to get everybody up to speed.
        But I hope you will take a look to be sure that you're not
    overlooking some facilities--when you're upgrading facilities
    to be sure you have the facilities you need, don't overlook
    some of the National Guard facilities. I hope you'll take a
    look at that and see if any of that money is going to be spent
    upgrading facilities, making sure that the soldiers have what
    they need at those facilities. It may be old, but they're still
    doing a great job for the defense of our country.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, believe it or not, I trained at
    Camp Shelby.

                              IED COUNTERMEASURES

        Senator Cochran. One thing that was asked already, and that
    was about the improvised explosive devices and the
    countermeasures that you're trying to develop. I'm told that
    there was a crash program being developed--and I had the name
    of it here awhile ago--in some testing the other day, they had
    a major setback, I understand. This is called the neutralized
    IED with Radio Frequency Program. And I don't want to get into
    classified information. I note that that probably is
    classified. But there is another technology that has come to my
    attention, developed to use directed energy instead of radio
    frequencies to counteract the effects of improvised explosive
    devices. The Ionatron Corporation is developing that
    countermeasure. I hope you'll look at that, if you have
    difficulty with the improvised explosive device countermeasures
    that you're working on right now. I know you have a task force
    to counter that threat. But we want to support the initiatives.
    A lot of the troops from my State, who have been killed over in
    Iraq, have been killed with those IED weapons.
        What is the status of coming to a point where we have a
    countermeasure that's effective against those devices?
        Secretary Harvey. Let me, we can't say a lot in open
    session, as you know, Senator, but the countermeasure
    technology is a sound technology. And it's a matter of how you
    field it. It's a matter of--I'd better not get into any more.
    I'm familiar with directed energy technologies for other
    applications. I personally worked on that in one of my prior
    jobs. And we'll certainly look into that if it's viable.
        Just one remark is, the countermeasure technology is
    intended to prevent an occurrence where it would appear that
    the directed energy would cause an explosion, which then--then
    there's another dimension to how you do that, when you do that.
    And so, the countermeasure jammer technology has basic benefits
    to it, rather than directed energy.
        But we're open to all this, and it has to be--it's a
    multitude of solutions to get at this; jammers being the major
    technology. But we're certainly open to--if it's viable, to
    look into its application, because, as you said, there is--in
    my way of thinking, and in the Chief's way of thinking, there's
    nothing more important than protecting our soldiers. That's
    foremost on our minds, and we are open to everything. And
    you've been generous in the past. And I appreciate Senator
    Inouye's question about, Are there adequate resources? And this
    is not a resource issue. This is making sure we have an
    effective technology that does its job. And we have fielded
    things--and I know you read certain things in the paper--we've
    fielded things that are 60 percent effective, and we're proud
    that they are 60 percent effective, because it was zero before.
    We're not waiting for the perfect solution. We're going to
    migrate to the--as good as we can get. But we're fielding it as
    soon as we feel like it's going to give the soldiers some
    protection. It may not be 100 percent reliable, but it's better
    than nothing. So I think we have a viable approach.
        We'll look into this, if it has benefits over
    countermeasure jammers.
        Senator Cochran. I wish you provide, for the record, the
    status of the review of the technology that I just----
        Secretary Harvey. Sure.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. Described.
        Secretary Harvey. No question.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                           Directed Energy Technology

        The Army is aware of the directed energy technology
    developed by the Ionatron Corporation to counter improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs). In fact, the U.S. Army Armaments
    Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) has
    reviewed the work being done at Ionatron, specifically the
    Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC). The technology shows
    promise for countermine neutralization, IED defeat, and
    possibly other non-lethal applications. In addition, other
    applications of this technology are being investigated for
    Homeland Defense. ARDEC is partnered with the Naval Research
    Laboratory, Ionatron, and the Stevens Institute of Technology
    in Hoboken, New Jersey to do further study. The President's
    budget for fiscal year 2006 includes funds for the ARDEC to
    continue evaluation of Ionatron research.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent
    that the statement by Senator Burns be put in the record? He
    had to go to another----
        Senator Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Secretary
    Harvey and General Schoomaker for coming before our
    subcommittee this morning, to testify on the Army's fiscal year
    2006 budget. I will keep my comments brief this morning and
    save the remainder of my statement for the record.
        Our military, and the U.S. Army in particular, continues to
    have many folks engaged around the world, especially in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. It is because of today's 640,000 brave
    soldiers serving on active duty, that we are winning this war
    on terror. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are
    performing magnificently. With more than 300,000 soldiers
    deployed or forward stationed around the world, there is no
    question that our forces are being challenged.
        Out of these approximately 315,000 currently deployed
    soldiers, 113,000 are Army National Guard and 47,000 Army
    Reserve. In Montana, over 40 percent of our National Guard and
    Reserve units have been called to active duty. I intend to do
    my part as their representative to ensure our armed forces have
    what they need to win this war, protect our homeland, and come
    home safely.
        I read daily of our great American soldiers developing
    unconventional solutions to solve various problems they face in
    the field. I think it makes a great deal of sense to have the
    mechanism in place to bring good ideas from our nation's
    universities, laboratories and small businesses to the soldiers
    as soon as possible, bypassing the bureaucracy. I encourage
    your continued support of Army initiatives to expedite the
    fielding of urgently needed equipment and life-saving
    technologies. You will have this Senator's continued support of
    the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) and the Rapid Equipping
    Force (REF)--two programs which accomplish just that. These
    efforts have resulted in the fielding of some truly incredible
    innovations, and I believe it is important that such efforts--
    and, therefore, relevant funding levels--continue.
        I look forward to seeing how the Army will meet its
    continual recruitment and retention challenges. I read with
    some recent news articles about the Army's failure to meet
    monthly recruitment goals so far this year, putting the Army at
    risk of not meeting goals for the first time since 1999. I look
    forward to hearing what initiatives you have in place to
    address these challenges, and I pledge to work with you and
    support you on this road ahead.
        When I am back in my State of Montana, I enjoy talking with
    our active and reserve component forces. There is no doubt in
    my mind, the dedication and love these brave men and women have
    to their country and their work. Their increased optempo since
    the attacks of 9/11 and the beginning of the Global War on
    Terror does not, however, come without costs--costs not only to
    the active duty forces, guardsmen and reservists themselves,
    but to their families and employers as well.
        I am pleased to see that Army leadership has realized this
    and has reflected these challenges in the Army fiscal year 2006
    budget. This morning I look forward to hearing about the Army's
    plans for rebalancing its forces and reducing the need for
    involuntary reserve mobilization. I do think it is important
    that we look at ways to add folks to areas where the Army is
    currently facing shortages, such as military police,
    transportation and civil affairs.
        Again, I thank you both for being here this morning. I look
    forward to your testimony.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                    RESERVE COMPONENTS MODULARITY AND RESET

        Mr. Secretary and General Schoomaker, as you know, Kit
    Bond, Senator Bond, of Missouri, and I are the co-chairs of the
    National Guard Caucus, something we take very seriously. And we
    support the efforts of the National Guard. I think we all agree
    that the National Guard's a critical part of our Nation's
    defense. We also know the--and we hear from our Guard members,
    we hear from other Senators on both sides of the aisle, about
    the mobilization of the Guard and Reserves, in both Iraq and
    Afghanistan. It's the largest, for reservists, since World War
    II. In fact, at my home State of Vermont, the little State of
    Vermont, we have 1,000--over 1,000 Guard members deployed. We
    are the second highest per capita in the country. Senator
    Inouye's State, Hawaii, is the highest.
        Now, we in the Guard Caucus--I think I can speak for both
    Republicans and Democrats on this--we support your efforts to
    include National Guard brigades in the Army's modularity plan,
    which will allow them to provide an important part of the
    Army's combat capability. But they're going to need the same
    advanced equipment as their active-duty counterparts. If
    they're going to be doing the same work as the active-duty
    counterparts, they should have the same equipment. They need it
    as soon as they return from their deployments so they can start
    the training. I think you both agree, training is so essential
    when they deploy.
        Now, I haven't seen any specific official figures from the
    Army about what's exactly included in the supplemental for
    Guard equipment in the reset of the deployed forces. The
    Secretary had said that we would get that information a couple
    of weeks ago. I know the subcommittee requested it. Mr.
    Secretary, we haven't gotten it yet. I wish, in the next couple
    of days, I could get provided with this kind of information. I
    want--and the subcommittee--to have an official breakdown of
    what's included with the Army Guard modularity and the
    equipment reset. Can we get that within the next couple of
    days?
        Secretary Harvey. Certainly you can.
        I'm not familiar with the request. The Chief may want to
    make a few--we can make some comments right now, if----
        Senator Leahy. Yeah, go ahead, but----
        Secretary Harvey. Yeah.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. If we could get----
        Secretary Harvey. We will get you that----
        Senator Leahy. Yeah.
        Secretary Harvey. We will fulfill that request.
        General Schoomaker. Did you want me to make----
        Secretary Harvey. Yeah, why don't you make a few----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Did you want me to
    comment?
        Secretary Harvey [continuing]. Comments about----
        General Schoomaker. All right.
        First of all, in the supplemental, what we're doing to
    reset the units that we have sent to Iraq is without regard to
    component. For instance, the 30th, the 39th, the 81st, those
    units received the most advanced soldier gear that we could put
    on them, even ahead of the active force, because of when they
    were going over there. They will be reset like the active force
    when they return.
        And so, there is--unlike in the base budget, where you have
    discrete lines for Guard and active, in the supplemental we
    have aggregated, and we are resetting the units that have gone.
    Now----
        Senator Leahy. You understand my concern, though. If it's--
    --
        General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Not a discrete line, it
    sometimes--we suddenly find, when you get budget crunches in
    other areas, the Guard and Reserve do not get that reset and do
    not get the----
        General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. The equipment. I just want to
    make sure----
        General Schoomaker. Sure, I think that it's fair to say--
    and you certainly talk to the Guard and Reserve leadership--we
    are committed to--you know, part of this reset is also part of
    transforming the Army to a more modular force. They go hand in
    glove. And so, we must use the resources that you're providing
    and the momentum we have from our deployments to expedite this
    process of making the Army more modular, and that's how we're
    doing it.
        Senator Leahy. Let's see if we can get some----
        Secretary Harvey. Senator, I can give you some specifics,
    if you'd like, right now.
        I just wanted to--and the Chief is--and this is his point,
    which is, we don't treat the Guard and Reserve any different
    than we treat the active. The Chief has started this
    initiative. It's an Army of One. And there's no difference, in
    our mind, between the active and the Guard.
        But specifically for in the fiscal year 2005 for reset,
    there's $855 million for modularity. There's $800 million
    specifically for the National Guard. And our plan in 2006 is
    $850 million for reset, $1 billion for modularity; in 2007, the
    same. So, over the next 3 years, we have about--if you add all
    those numbers up, it's about $5 billion for reset and
    modularity for--specifically for the Guard--in the 3-year
    period.
        Senator Leahy. If our staffs----
        Secretary Harvey. And we'll provide that for the record. I
    have it right here.
        [The information follows:]

                    Army National Guard Modularity and Reset

        The Department needs flexible, rapidly deployable forces
    and sufficient depth and strength to sustain multiple,
    simultaneous operations. The Army is transforming to a modular
    structure to meet these challenges. This new organization will
    have 77 combat brigades, 43 in the active Force and 34 in the
    Army National Guard. Transforming to a modular organization
    will allow the Army to use its people and equipment more
    efficiently. In fiscal year 2004, the Army added three new
    active brigades and converted 11 others. In fiscal year 2005,
    the Army will add another three active brigades, and will
    convert five active and three Guard brigades into the Modular
    configuration. The investment portion of the supplemental
    contains $787 million to procure equipment to support these
    Guard brigades which are scheduled to deploy to Iraq, in
    accordance with the Army's Campaign Plan. This equipment is
    listed below.

          FISCAL YEAR 2005 ARNG EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENT \1\
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                     Nomenclature/item name                      2005 GWOT
                                                                   reqts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SINCGARS................................................          28,800
    Tactical Radios (HF-150)................................           7,300
    Tactical Radios (PRC-148)...............................           5,900
    Tactical Radios (PRC-117)...............................           8,250
    JAVELIN Control Launch Unit--RC.........................          88,000
    M249 SAW MG, 5.56 mm....................................          15,864
    M240 MG, Armor MG 7.62 mm...............................          18,595
    M4 Carbine 5.56 mm......................................          12,621
    Sniper Rifle, M107......................................           1,188
    M4 Carbine Mods.........................................           4,075
    M249 SAW MG Mods........................................             556
    SHADOW UAV..............................................          12,500
    Bradley RECAP (WTCV)....................................          70,300
    CI/HUMINT Information Management System.................           5,400
    AFATDS..................................................          10,950
    AN/PAQ-4 (RC)...........................................           2,700
    Driver Vision Enhancer..................................           3,981
    Long Range Adv Scout Surveillance System................          36,970
    AN/PVS-14...............................................          38,800
    M119A2..................................................          23,577
    Improved Target Acquisition System......................          35,000
    Digitized Topographic Support System....................          10,200
    KNIGHT..................................................          12,900
    M240 MG Mods............................................             221
    JAVELIN Control Launch Unit--AC/RC......................          27,664
    Management (ADAM) Cell..................................          18,000
    Mortar Fire Control System (MFCS-H).....................          38,577
    PROPHET Block II/III....................................           7,891
    TROJAN SPIRIT...........................................          11,052
    All Source Analysis System..............................           5,856
    Distributed Common Ground System--Army..................             120
    Q36 (Shelters)..........................................          10,100
    BCS3....................................................          21,100
    LLDR....................................................          16,000
    Abrams Blue Force Tracker Installation Kits.............           2,100
    Maintenance Support Device..............................          23,620
    FORWARD REPAIR SYSTEM...................................          36,634
    Lightweight Handheld Mortar Ballistic computer (LHMBC)..           3,732
    SHOP EQUIPMENT CONTACT MAINT TRUCK......................          12,111
    120 mm Mortar System....................................          22,700
    TRAILER MOUNTED WELDING SHOP............................           1,452
    LMTC....................................................          28,200
    FMTV....................................................          45,438
                                                             ---------------
          Total fiscal year 2005 ARNG equipment supplemental         787,000
           request..........................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Identified to support the conversion of ARNG BCTs in accordance with
      the ACP.

        Senator Leahy. I appreciate that, Dr. Harvey. I really do.
    And if we can have our staff, sort of----
        Secretary Harvey. Sure.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Keep in touch with this.

                        FORCE PROTECTION INDUSTRIAL BASE

        I was concerned, on the article that was in the New York
    Times on Monday, about the delay in providing armor protection
    for our troops in Iraq. The article, sort of, said it was not
    so much the lack of an industrial base, or even bad
    decisionmaking at the highest level, but some kind of absurd
    bureaucratic delays that sound like a Kafka novel as you read
    it. Former Defense Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, who was a frequent
    witness before this panel, pointed out that the Defense
    Department didn't add more manufacturers of armored vehicles
    because it didn't want to acknowledge previous mistakes and
    then alarm the public. Several of your supply chiefs were
    quoted about delays that prevented production orders from going
    out on contract more quickly and about the supply issues that
    prevented what was actually made getting into the hands of
    troops who needed it urgently.
        I think every one of us on here received letters and calls
    on this armor question. I'm hoping that the Armed Services
    Committee, the authorizing committee, will ramp up a series of
    hearings on this.
        I just want to know if you share our concern and our
    outrage. Because you look at this--you find foreign countries
    seem able to somehow get past the bureaucratic delay. I mean,
    what's happening?
        Secretary Harvey. Well, can I just--if somebody would put
    up a chart here, I'll show you, kind of a history, and then
    make some comments about it.
        Senator Leahy. And if you feel the article was inaccurate,
    say so.
        Secretary Harvey. Well, it wasn't totally accurate, for
    sure.
        This is a chart of up-armoring of the spectrum of vehicles
    that we have in theater, from Humvees to medium tactical
    wheeled vehicles to heavy. So we have seven different
    categories. And you can see there, starting in the fourth
    quarter of 2003, when the--kind of, the timeframe certainly
    wasn't around--but when this threat, the IED threat, became
    apparent, there was a very big effort to up-armor all vehicles.
    Today, you can see, over there, that we are now about--31,000
    out of the 32,000 vehicles are up-armored, so nearly 100
    percent are armored. Most importantly, no vehicle that goes out
    of camp with an American soldier goes out without armor. So
    today--and that started in the middle of February--every
    vehicle that leaves a forward operating base is armored,
    because of the record there of up-armoring.
        Now, let me just say, from my point of view, because I've
    been on the other end of procurement and I've worked in the
    aerospace and defense industry. It's universally believed that
    it takes too long--the acquisition process takes too long.
    There's stories galore about it. In this case, it was
    accelerated by leaps and bounds above what it had traditionally
    been. We had the Rapid Fielding Initiative, the Rapid Equipment
    Fielding initiative. My point of view is, progress has been
    made. It still takes too long. And I have tasked my Assistant
    Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology--and the
    Chief and I have talked about this in great deal, that we don't
    want to lose the momentum of reducing the cycle time of
    acquisition. We want to codify and institutionalize this. And
    our idea is to see if we can take the best of an acquisitions
    system which is made somewhat for large developments, and
    distill it down so that we can rapidly field this equipment.
        I think that the record will show that we've done better.
    It's still not good enough, in my mind. We still need to get it
    quicker.
        Now, in regard to that article, it failed to mention that
    the body armor that was procured in 12 days was inferior to our
    Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) plates, it was inferior to
    what was fielded. And, quite frankly, we wouldn't put it on our
    soldiers.
        So, there was a little bit of inaccuracies in the article.
    I think that you can--you know, this is half-full/half empty.
    You can look at that and say, you're there now. We're there in
    body armor, we're there in vehicle armor. It took too long. But
    it was accelerated above what it normally would be. And you
    have to understand, also, that this just isn't going to the
    hardware store; this is a design and test phase. It would be a
    tragedy for us to go develop something that didn't provide the
    protection and gave the soldier a false sense of security. So
    it had to be tested, it had to be designed specifically for
    these vehicles that--it was never intended to have armor.
        And as you can see from this picture up here, that's a up-
    armored HUMVEE, and every soldier that was in that vehicle
    walked away. So there is some good news in this. But I am
    committed to further improve this acquisition cycle.
        Chief, you may want to make some comments.
        General Schoomaker. Right. May I have a couple of seconds
    to say something?
        Number one, I am not happy with the acquisition system. It
    is a product that a lot of people ought to share the blame for.
    It is designed to never make a mistake. It is not designed to
    be effective, and it is certainly not designed for war. And so,
    I have asked repeatedly that we reform the acquisition system
    to be more closely related to what I had when I was Commander
    in Chief in Special Operations Command, and that is to get the
    bureaucracy and all the fingers and all of the people that want
    to make sure that they get their piece of the lollipop out of
    the system.
        Senator Leahy. Did you say ``lollipop?''
        General Schoomaker. Of the lollipop. Lick the big lollipop.
    Uncle Sam's lollipop.
        I think we all share in some responsibility there for that.
        Number two, we have never up-armored things like jeeps. We
    had 500 of them in the Army. I'm not suggesting this was the
    best move, but it's what we had. And it was designed for scouts
    and MPs. And this war, with what we got, indicated that we had
    to provide better protection for soldiers. As we've already
    said, even M-1 tanks have been blown up. So there is a physical
    limitation to how much armor you can put on things. And one of
    the physical limitations we have are--the vehicles that we had
    to up-armor were not designed to carry the armor. And so, we've
    now had excessive rollovers of these vehicles. We've had
    excessive wear of these vehicles. We've had all kinds of
    problems with these vehicles. And so, we have made some major
    changes to get the right kind of heavy-duty vehicle to carry
    this armor.
        In light of the system we have, this is extraordinary. And
    if you want to read a great story, read about the United States
    Army and this country in World War II and the 2 years and 3
    months and 7 days it took for it to crank up its system from
    the time that the war started to get ready to go into North
    Africa. And you can read it in Rick Atkinson's book, called
    ``An Army at Dawn.'' And it would make you very proud of what
    this Army has done to get ready and to fight this war in the
    last year.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to assure General Schoomaker, we are very proud of
    the Army and the way----
        General Schoomaker. Thank you.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. They have taken the burden
    of this war on terror. It's phenomenal.
        I have two questions. First, let me say, to both the
    Secretary and to General Schoomaker, that I think your efforts
    at modularity are innovative and bold, and we want to support,
    in every way, the efforts that you are making in this regard.

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (MILCON)

        I was concerned, I have to tell you, yesterday, when I was
    in my military construction hearing, to note that Army military
    construction is 16 percent down from last year; Air Force is 61
    percent up. Now, I'm not comparing services, and I am not in
    anyway saying that it's wrong that Air Force is up. However, we
    do know that the Army is carrying such a load in not only the
    war on terrorism, but in the reconfiguration. We do know that
    it will be mostly Army people moving back from Europe for the
    long term. And my question is, How can you get by with a 16
    percent cut in military construction when you are being asked
    to do so much?
        Secretary Harvey. Senator, one of the reasons--and I'll get
    you a detailed answer for the record--is, one of the effects we
    have going on here--there's a number of sub-elements, one of
    which is, because of the residential community initiative,
    which is the privatization of our housing, that--which the
    private sector now----
        Senator Hutchison. Right.
        Secretary Harvey [continuing]. Takes care of--we have less
    need for monies in Army family housing. The other effect is
    that, because we are globally rebasing, as you indicated, and
    bringing a lot of people back from Germany, the Army
    construction housing--we're just maintaining, rather than
    building anything new. We're going to maintain those residents
    in what we have.
        So let me get you a detailed answer for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                           Decrease in Milcon Budget

        While the regular Army's construction budget is lower than
    the fiscal year 2005 level, the budget represents a balance
    among the Army's requirements and supports our highest military
    construction priorities, which includes barracks, family
    housing, training ranges, Army National Guard Readiness Centers
    and aviation facilities and Army Reserve centers. The fiscal
    year 2006 budget request supports global restationing moves,
    part of which is in the base, realignment, and closure wedge.
    Reductions were made to the Army family housing appropriation
    to account for housing privatization. These funds were moved to
    the Military Pay appropriation to cover basic allowance for
    housing so Soldiers could pay their rent.

        Secretary Harvey. But I think, macroscopically, this--I'm
    looking at the numbers, and I realize--and I actually asked the
    same question, because, on the surface, it looks like, you
    know, we're not doing what we need to do. But I think, down in
    the detail, there is these other effects.
        General Schoomaker. If I could, Senator, number one, the
    work last year, where you supported the raising of the cap for
    RCI, has allowed us now to almost double the number of
    installations. We went from 23 installations now to about 45
    installations. We went from something like 30--in the high--
    30,000 homes to over 85,000 homes that we're going to be able
    to build now on the RCI project. And so, this has an impact and
    an offset.
        And the second thing is, because of the plan to modularize
    the Army force, we cannot use MILCON. It doesn't work fast
    enough for us to get the barracks, et cetera, built fast
    enough. And, therefore, we're doing some of that with
    supplemental funding for the units that we're standing up to go
    to war through the temporary barracks, as an example. And we
    will follow up with permanent construction in those enduring
    facilities that we know, as we rebase, bringing 70,000 soldiers
    home from Europe, for example, and 100,000 family members, that
    will be absorbed in Continental United States (CONUS), and we
    want to make sure that, when we get through--if there is a Base
    Realignment and Closure (BRAC), we want to make sure that we
    get through the BRAC process and invest in the places that we
    need to invest, you know, as a result of that.
        So it's very complex. I think we owe you an answer for the
    record.
        Secretary Harvey. Yeah, we do.
        General Schoomaker. But my view is, we're advancing the
    checker, not retarding it----
        Senator Hutchison. Well----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. And there's a fundamental
    difference between the Air Force and the Army in this regard,
    because they have a different situation on their hands than we
    do, as you know.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, that's true. And let me say that I
    like the privatized housing. It is so much better quality. The
    neighborhoods look like neighborhoods, and the--all of the Army
    people that I've talked to love it. Well, all the
    servicepeople, where they have these units, love it, which is
    good. But that does mean you're going to have to use the
    savings from construction to go into the lease payments that
    are a part of that contract.
        So I'm not against that, as long as you're not
    shortchanging the other types of buildings that are needed for
    better training facilities, for all of the troops that will be
    brought home and reconfigured.
        Secretary Harvey. In this regard, let me tell you, Senator,
    something we did--the Chief and I did a couple of weeks ago in
    looking into our Barracks Modernization Program, which is an
    ongoing program to bring the 136,000 barracks that we have up
    to a quality standard, plus what we call a ``One-and-One,''
    which is a very nice arrangement where there's two separate
    rooms and a common area. We call that the ``One-and-One.'' It
    came to light in one of our briefings, to the Chief and I, that
    there are still 20,000 substandard barracks that don't meet
    quality standards. The Chief and I looked at each other. We
    said, ``That is unacceptable.'' We're reprogramming money
    within our accounts to take care of that this year, so that the
    20,000 substandards--the good news is, 80 have been converted;
    the bad news is, there's 20,000. Then you ask the question,
    ``Well, when's that going to happen?'' They say, ``Well, this
    is the program. It goes to 2009.'' You say, ``Unacceptable.
    We're going to do''----
        Senator Hutchison. Good.
        Secretary Harvey [continuing]. It right now.''
        So you can rest assured that we're sensitive to this and
    that we ask our soldiers and their--in this case, the single
    soldiers--to sacrifice for this country; they can live--and, as
    you heard, their quality of life should match their quality of
    service. So we--we're putting our dollars where our words are.
        General Schoomaker. That 20,000 barracks are rooms. That is
    not buildings. So there's 177 buildings and 20,000 barrack
    spaces----
        Senator Hutchison. I understand.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Is what we're talking
    about. And we will----
        Senator Hutchison. And I like the----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Have that done.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. I've seen the ``One-and-
    Ones.'' I like them very much.
        Secretary Harvey. Yeah.
        General Schoomaker. Yeah, the ``One-Plus-One.''

                              ARMY DEPOT CAPACITY

        Senator Hutchison. Second question, on depots. We are now--
    at Red River Army Depot, for instance, they are putting out two
    to three times the work, doing a great job in armoring
    vehicles. But there was a time when Red River was not doing as
    much. And my question is, as we are looking at the long term
    for the Army, do you look at being able to surge and keeping
    the, maybe, excess depot capacity in the future for your
    vehicles, looking at the kind of security threats we're going
    to have, so that we would looking at needing to keep that
    capability that we are seeing in, now, all three of the vehicle
    maintenance depots that we have?
        General Schoomaker. From the military perspective, the
    answer is, yes. And these are the factors that we placed into
    the whole comprehensive look. I couldn't speak directly to Red
    River. As you know----
        Senator Hutchison. Right.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. There are a number of
    arsenals and depots, et cetera. But I think it's very clear
    that the surge capacity was absolutely fundamental to our
    success in doing what we just showed here on----
        But I am concerned about things like industrial base. For
    instance, we have one ammunition plant in this country for 50
    caliber and below that services not just the Army, but the Air
    Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, and
    everybody else. And our requirement's for about $2 billion a
    year, and the machines in this factory are 1940 and 1942
    machines, still run by leather belts. And much of this is a
    hand process. For instance, all of the primers for all of our
    small-arms ammunition are still hand-loaded and eye-inspected.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, General Schoomaker, you mentioned
    that you don't like the acquisition process. That is a factor
    in what you're just saying, because, with one place to make
    that ammunition in America, and the costs are different from
    foreign competitors, I think looking at our own U.S.
    capabilities to make that kind of ammunition should be a factor
    in our----
        General Schoomaker. I couldn't agree more.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Acquisition decisions,
    because we're going to run the one out of business because they
    can't compete with foreign companies.
        General Schoomaker. Senator, I couldn't agree more. And
    I'll tell you that, as a mitigating factor, we went offshore to
    look at foreign capacity to produce the small arms, and we went
    inside the country to look at it, and there are limitations
    commercially; not only limitations in terms of numbers that can
    be produced, but quality. And, as you know, we have very--we
    have to have very high standards in the quality of our
    ammunition, you know, for our troops.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, we want to work with you on that.
        General Schoomaker. Thank you.
        Secretary Harvey. Let me just add, Senator, to your point
    about the depots and the arsenals, which are very important in
    our ability to do what we just showed you, that, besides their
    own product lines and their own reset activities, they
    participate in a lot of the up-armoring. In 2003, across the
    five depots and three arsenals, we generated about 12 million
    productive hours. This is how you measure a factory's output.
    This year, it will be something like 19 to 20 million
    productive hours. And next year, the schedule is for 25
    million. So we have really cranked up, so to speak, the depots
    and arsenals. They have played a very important role. And we
    take a strategic look at those, and that's our view, based--
    it's based on this experience.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        GROUND-BASED MID-COURSE MISSION

        Senator Stevens. I just want to ask one question, if you
    can provide an answer for the record. I understand there's a
    question of using dual-status 10 title--dual-status, title 10,
    title 32 Guard personnel for the Ground-Based Midcourse mission
    in Alaska. It's my understanding that was in the basis of the
    plan--original planning for that mission, but would you, for
    the record, explain which authority the Guard personnel for
    this mission will be designated, and whether a decision will be
    made to change the original plan?
        Secretary Harvey. We'll do that, Senator.
        [The information follows:]

     Dual Status Technicians for Ground Based Mid-Course Mission in Alaska

        There are no dual status technicians contemplated for this
    mission, all are Active Guard Reserve (AGR) or active duty
    Soldiers. It has been the Army's intent to employ the original
    manning model wherein the Colorado Army National Guard (ARNG)
    and the Alaska ARNG Title 32 Active Guard Reserve Soldiers who
    transition to title 10 to perform federal operational missions.
    These missions include duties to control, operate, or maintain
    the GMD system, or to secure or defend any GMD site or asset.
    Prior to making a formal decision, the Secretary of the Army
    entered into consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). Those consultations
    continue with USD(P&R), with a decision forthcoming.

        Senator Stevens. Now, could we have the honor of having a
    photograph taken with these three young men who are part of the
    newest Greatest Generation? We'd like to personally
    congratulate them, if that would be possible.
        Secretary Harvey. Absolutely.
        Senator Cochran. Can I ask a couple of more questions?
        Senator Stevens. Oh, pardon me, Senator, do you have--yes,
    we have time.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

                    FIRESCOUT UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)

        Let me ask, before we get to the photograph, there are a
    couple of questions that I had that I would like to get on the
    record today, if we could. I don't think the supplemental
    provides a request for funding of the Firescout, but I know
    that this is a new unmanned aerial vehicle that is being looked
    at very closely by both the Navy and the Army. Testing has
    already commenced by the Navy, and I understand the Army plans
    to commence testing soon. And if I'm correct, this is a new
    platform that will provide operational capability for
    commanders in the field far greater than we have in any other
    unmanned vehicle that is in the inventory at this time.
        Could you tell me if--and this is the Firescout system that
    I'm talking about, specifically--it would provide the Army with
    the opportunity to accelerate force capabilities into the
    current force. And this is my question. Even though this was
    looked at as a part of the future Army inventory, could you
    provide an estimate for the record on the earliest integration
    that you foresee for Firescout into the Army's inventory of
    resources?
        General Schoomaker. Just to make sure I understand, I think
    you're talking about the A-160 rotary UAV. Is that----
        Senator Cochran. It is----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Correct?
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. It can be used as an attack
    helicopter, it can be used----
        General Schoomaker. Okay.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. To direct fire. It has a lot
    of capabilities, that's right.
        General Schoomaker. You are correct. That is being looked
    at as part of the Future Combat System. It is something,
    certainly, as it would be available, we would spiral. And we'll
    get you an answer for the record, in terms of that.
        [The information follows:]

             Integration of Firescout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

        The Army has selected the RQ-8 Firescout as the Future
    Combat Systems (FCS) Class IV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
    solution. The Army plans to field all four classes of UAV
    beginning in fiscal year 2014 to the first Unit of Action. The
    Army will continue to assess the technology readiness of the
    FCS UAVs in concert with the other FCS platforms and network to
    determine if an accelerated fielding date is feasible and
    prudent.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you.

                              HOUSING AT KAWAJLEIN

        The Senator from Texas asked you about barracks and the
    need to upgrade facilities. And this is a critical problem in
    some areas. We also want to point out, the Army has control and
    jurisdiction over Kwajalein. There's a lot of work being done
    out there in connection with our missile defense program. A lot
    of people come and go out there. But the facilities for housing
    are dilapidated, old, worn-out facilities. There are a lot of
    trailers that were built--put on the island in the 1960s, and
    are falling apart. There's a new dome construction housing
    program out there that's working well, and I'm told that you
    could use some more housing out there for the people who are
    working in this program. Since it's the Army's responsibility,
    would you look at that and see if you could accelerate the
    purchase of this--dome housing components. We think it's cost
    effective. That's what we were told. But verify that for me,
    and if it needs to be in the supplemental, let us know.
        Secretary Harvey. Okay, we'll do that.
        [The information follows:]

             U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Dome Home Initiative

        At this time, the Army is not able to accelerate funding to
    provide dome-style housing for the stationed workforce
    population at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll. Other pressing Army
    funding requirements in Military Construction, Army and
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army
    accounts outweigh the Army's ability to replace the 1960
    vintage trailers.
        While overall Army requirements exceed the ability to
    accelerate funding, the present housing situation is in an
    extremely deteriorated state. Kwajalein, an essential missile
    test and space surveillance facility, is basically a
    government-owned, contractor-operated installation. The
    demographics of Kwajalein include approximately 25 military, 70
    Army civilians, and 1,100 American contractors. For the past
    couple of decades, the infrastructure has been failing and
    continued patchwork on many deteriorated structures, to include
    many of the trailers, is no longer an option. Over 200 single-
    wide aluminum 1960's vintage trailers continue to house the
    U.S. Army, government civilian and contractor personnel. Annual
    cost to maintain these trailers exceed $5,000 per unit.
        Direct appropriations for Kwajalein are provided through
    RDT&E. Recent housing upgrades at Kwajalein are the results of
    Congressional add items. Boeing, a tenant on Kwajalein, paid
    for 15 dome facilities for permanent residents in support of
    missile defense programs (specifically Ground-Based Midcourse
    under Missile Defense Agency). These domes have been in use for
    almost seven years, and will revert to government control upon
    vacation of Boeing as the GMD mission concludes. They are leak
    proof, mold and mildew resistant, free of pests, and are
    aesthetically consistent with island infrastructure. USAKA was
    Congressionally authorized and approved to build ten dome homes
    in 2003, but the funding was not appropriated. These homes were
    built with funds shifted away from other infrastructure needs.
    Commensurate with the construction, a number of trailers were
    disposed of. USAKA did receive $2.1 million in a supplemental
    in 2004 to build eight domes, and $1.8 million in 2005 for an
    additional eight domes. Total number of dome housing on island,
    either complete or under construction, is 41. These dome homes
    have a life expectancy of 50-75 years with much more cost
    effective maintenance costs than the trailers.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. I have other questions I'd like to submit
    for the record.
        Senator Stevens. We are going to submit some questions for
    the record, yes, sir. We would appreciate your response to
    those questions.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]

                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Francis Harvey
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                             FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS

        Question. What is your assessment of the Future Combat System and
    what technologies do you feel pose the greatest challenge to this
    program?
        Answer. Building on the modular organization, the Future Combat
    System (FCS)-equipped Unit of Action (UA) is designed for the future
    operational environment that our strategic thinking predicts. The
    embedded network capabilities allow the FCS-equipped UA to fully
    leverage Joint capabilities and ensure that we have created a force
    that is fully integrated and capable of achieving decision superiority.
        The FCS-equipped UAs will be the Army's future tactical warfighting
    echelon; a dominant ground combat force that complements the dominant
    Joint team. FCS will improve the strategic deployability and
    operational maneuver capability of ground combat formations without
    sacrificing lethality or survivability. The challenges for this program
    and the Army are developing the network centric environment, and
    defeating future kinetic threats. The FCS program takes these
    challenges head on to develop the kind of intelligence and situational
    awareness required for surviving in the current to future environment.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INFORMATION SYSTEMS REDESIGN

        Question. Secretary Harvey, in February 2004 the President mandated
    a significant redesign of Army National Guard installation information
    systems to bring them into compliance with existing management systems.
    I have been informed this redesign is critical to coordinating national
    and regional responses during a natural disaster or act of terrorism.
    The redesign would also improve mobilization and training of National
    Guard brigades supporting the Global War on Terror. I did not see any
    request in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission to fund this mandate.
    What is your assessment of the Army's approach to improve Enterprise
    Resource Planning for National Guard Installations, the capabilities
    required to support deployments, and the Army plan to fund this
    Presidential mandate?
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is currently in the process
    of overhauling and modernizing all of its automated systems to adhere
    more closely to a commercial enterprise resource planning (ERP)
    solution. The ARNG recognizes the importance of this initiative and
    reprioritized existing funding ($1.7 million fiscal year 2004 and $3
    million fiscal year 2005 Operations and Maintenance, National Guard
    (OMNG)) which was supplemented with an fiscal year 2005 Congressional
    add ($1 million OMNG). The ARNG is currently conducting an enterprise
    business process architecture study that includes not only installation
    management but also finance, logistics, and human resources.
        The February 2004 Presidential order mandating establishment of a
    Federal real property asset management system requires a significant
    re-look of the Guard's information systems to bring them into
    compliance. Federal statutes mandate that state Guard funding and
    facilities be managed by the National Guard apart from the active Army.
    The Army has embraced ERP planning philosophy, methodology, and
    commercially-proven software to take an Army enterprise approach to
    modernizing its logistics management systems that affect the operation
    of Guard units in 54 states and territories. The ARNG has begun a
    process to develop an ERP-based Guard installation management system
    which will allow Guard units, in the future, to support local and state
    authorities, state police, and state and federal agencies like FBI,
    NOAA, DEA, EPA, and CDC. Since the ARNG manages its military
    construction program, separately from the active Army, upgrades to the
    installation management system are essential for efficient
    modernization of the Army Guard's national infrastructure. In the
    future, State systems will be linked, allowing efficient and
    coordinated regional and national response. They will also be linked
    with the National Geospatial Agency's vast digital library of
    geospatial and mapping data, providing Guard commanders at all levels
    accurate and actionable visualization information of individual
    buildings, posts and Readiness Centers, highways, cities, counties,
    regions, and other items of interest. Army Guard facilities are used to
    deploy forces during emergencies and combat operations. The Guard's
    legacy information systems for installation management proved to be
    inefficient for deploying units to Afghanistan and Iraq. They are
    incapable of providing critical asset visibility outside of individual
    States, and do not have interfaces to the systems of federal and state
    emergency management agencies such as FEMA. The ARNG facilities
    receive, stage, train, and deploy ARNG during state emergencies and
    preparation for combat operations and require an installation
    management solution that will modernize installation business
    operations and support state and federal missions. In today's climate,
    where the Army plays an ever-increasing role in conflicts all over the
    globe, it is imperative that the ARNG take a proactive approach. The
    ARNG will continue to move ahead with modernization initiatives and
    fully intends to integrate Army initiatives when implemented.
        The ARNG must continue with its efforts to develop an ERP-based
    installations management system. Extending the ongoing business process
    study from high level business processes to the transactional level
    would be valuable in determining the value added of an ERP project. The
    business model, in Department of Defense architecture framework
    standards of the ARNG installations management using the access request
    information system toolset and delivery of an integrated proof of
    concept pilot implementation of the installations management solution
    using commercial, off-the-shelf software--SAPTM (Enterprise
    and Solution Manager), and ESRITM/DISDI Geographic
    Information System would be in concert with other ongoing DOD and Army
    ERP projects. The proof of concept will be piloted at two ARNG
    facilities, to be determined at a later date.

                                 ROTORCRAFT HUB

        Question. Secretary Harvey, helicopters continue to perform a
    myriad of missions around the world while the cost of operating and
    maintaining these aircraft continues to rise. I would think that with
    the increased number of aircraft operating in combat, with many
    exceeding expected annual flying hours, any technology that improves
    maintainability and performance would provide a welcome benefit.
        Hub drag is one major problem in helicopter operations that is in
    need of improvements. I have been informed that Brannon Industries,
    located in Johnson City, TN has a rotorcraft hub shroud design
    currently in development which could provide these needed improvements.
    What are your thoughts on this technology and its potential impact on
    aircraft operations, maintenance and overall savings?
        Answer. We recognize the issue of hub drag in Army helicopter
    operations and are evaluating several solutions to this issue,
    including the one offered by Brannon Industries.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. Do you believe that enhanced enlistment bonuses,
    increased recruiters and other incentives for individual soldiers will
    be enough to overcome current recruiting difficulties for the Army?
        Answer. The Army has examined the fiscal year 2005 recruiting
    environment and expects this environment to remain equally challenging
    into fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. The operations in support
    of the Global War on Terror, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
    Enduring Freedom are only a part of this recruiting environment.
    Additionally, the Nation is experiencing an improving economy as well
    as improving unemployment rates. Today's youth continue to have options
    that do not necessarily include the military. We believe that we are
    implementing a sound plan to address these issues.
        The Army is not only aggressively adjusting our number of
    recruiters, advertising dollars, and incentives. We are shaping the
    Army's future policies to allow the components to adapt much quicker to
    the Army's recruiting environment. We remain committed to attracting
    high quality men and women to serve as Soldiers.

                                  END STRENGTH

        Question. In a related question, do you believe that the current
    attempt to restructure forces so more soldiers are in combat roles
    rather than administrative jobs are enough to address ``end strength''
    concerns? Or will a legislative increase in the number of troops be
    required?
        Answer. No. Military to civilian conversions represent a fraction
    of Army efforts to make better use of available manpower and relieve
    force stress. We have numerous other actions underway such as
    rebalancing the numbers and types of capabilities between components,
    adjusting our overseas footprint, modular force designs, improved
    management of readiness and resources with the Army Force Generation
    model, use of contractors on the battlefield to offset soldier
    requirements, applying technology to leverage ``reachback''
    capabilities here at home, and a host of other initiatives.
        Individually, these actions are not enough to address ``end
    strength'' concerns. Collectively, they represent a powerful large-
    scale endeavor to relieve stress on our Soldiers and families. A
    legislative troop increase will be necessary if current force
    requirements persist (or increase) during the coming years. If force
    requirements decline over the coming months, a legislative increase
    will not be required.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General Peter J. Schoomaker
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                                   MODULARITY

        Question. Many are questioning the inclusion of Modularity funding
    in the supplemental. Please explain why Modularity requirements are
    included in the supplemental request and describe how Modularity has
    helped our troops currently deployed and those preparing to deploy to
    Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Answer. There are two reasons that justify why the cost of
    modularity is part of the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental. First, these
    requirements directly support the war fight because they equip units
    planned for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. The Army developed
    estimates for the Army Modular Force after reviewing the specific
    equipment and facility needs of those units planned for conversion. The
    supplemental supports only those equipment requirements for these near
    term deployers, both active and Reserve Component.
        Second, the accelerated process of the supplemental when compared
    to the normal budget process--a matter of months compared to almost two
    years--permits us to more precisely determine our requirements in this
    very dynamic environment. We have programmed for modularity
    requirements beginning in fiscal year 2007 when we will have more
    certainty of our deployment schedules and associated equipment and
    facility needs.
        Modularity helps our forces deployed to or preparing to deploy to
    Iraq and Afghanistan by making them more lethal and mobile. We can
    incorporate the most recent lessons learned in our training techniques
    and tactics and we can ensure our soldiers have the equipment they need
    to defend against and attack the latest tactics used by the enemy.
        In the future, modularity will relieve stress on the force by
    increasing the number of brigades and rotational depth of the force.
    With increased rotational depth, the Army can reduce the frequency and
    duration of deployments. In conjunction with the Army's force
    stabilization initiative, deployment schedules for Soldiers and their
    families will become more predictable. Modular force elements have full
    spectrum capabilities along the entire range of military operations.
    This allows the Army to generate force packages optimized to meet the
    demands of a particular situation, without the need to deploy
    additional Soldiers unless absolutely required.

                          ARMY AVIATION MODERNIZATION

        Question. Your recently released aviation modernization plan
    contains sweeping changes; tell us about the status of this plan and
    how you plan to mitigate risks along the way.
        Answer. The Aviation Modernization Plan is linked to the Army
    Aviation Transformation Plan and the current warfight. As such, we have
    already started the implementation of the modernization plan:
    acceleration of upgrades for aircraft survivability equipment on our
    aircraft deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF), reset and recapitalization of our current
    fleets, and continuing to complete the acquisition documentation for
    the new start programs (armed reconnaissance helicopter, light utility
    helicopter, future cargo aircraft, and the extended range multi-purpose
    unmanned aerial vehicle system). We will continue to mitigate risk by
    leveraging supplemental funding to jump start our Reset and Recap
    efforts for our legacy fleet, oversight provided from the Department of
    Defense and Department of the Army Acquisition Executive, vetting the
    new start programs through the Joint Capabilities and Integration
    Development System (JCIDS), and monitoring programmatics to ensure cost
    and production schedules are maintained for our new start programs.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                        PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

        Question. I have been informed that Secretary Rumsfeld asked the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide options on how to reduce the officer
    professional military education programs during stress periods, such as
    during current operations. One of the recognized strengths of the
    United States Military is its professional military education. Would
    you share with this committee your thoughts on this matter?
        Answer. The Army is in the process of developing and executing
    training transformation initiatives. These include changes in structure
    (additional Intermediate Level Education (ILE) capacity), course
    content, delivery methods, and course length/administration of
    Professional Military Education/Joint Professional Military Education
    (PME/JPME) (ILE Course Location capability). The Army has made
    significant strides in the execution of JPME. These changes will better
    support both the current war effort and those of the future by
    providing officers who are better educated, more prepared and able to
    adapt easily to situations in a joint/coalition environment. The Army
    can continue to support the combatant commander by releasing the
    minimal number of officers for mission support. This will not reduce
    the Army's educational investment in developing its leaders, who can
    contribute effectively to the joint warfight. The Army is committed to
    developing its leaders, while simultaneously fulfilling all operational
    requirements.

                                   MODULARITY

        Question. The Army is placing great emphasis on its efforts to
    transition to a modular force. We know that the fiscal year 2005
    supplemental request contains funding for modularity, approximately $5
    billion for the Army. There are no funds in the fiscal year 2006 budget
    for modularity, even though this effort will continue well into the
    future. Could you describe what the current Army will look like at the
    end of fiscal year 2006 and the rate at which the remainder of the Army
    will become a modular force?
        Answer. By the end of fiscal year 2006, the Army plans for 11
    modular UEx headquarters, 46 modular combat brigades (heavy, infantry
    and Stryker) and 47 modular support brigade headquarters in the active
    Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. The Army will continue
    converting active, Guard, and Reserve structure to modular force
    elements through fiscal year 2010 to create additional modular combat
    brigades, modular support brigades and subordinate elements, and
    modular UEx headquarters.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                   MOBILE TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER (MTHEL)

        Question. The Army has not included funding for the Mobile Tactical
    High Energy Laser (MTHEL) in its fiscal year 2006 budget request. It is
    my understanding that this decision is driven partly by a lack of
    funding contribution from the Israeli government (our international
    partner on MTHEL), and partly because MTHEL funds were reprogrammed to
    support overseas operations.
        One of my great concerns about the operation in Iraq is the
    difficulty of addressing the threat posed to our troops by rockets,
    artillery and mortars (RAM). Furthermore, I believe that directed
    energy is the best solution to this problem. In particular, MTHEL has
    shown maturity and testing success against RAM threats. I believe we
    have an obligation to our troops to accelerate MTHEL operational
    capabilities to achieve better force protection.
        Do you agree that directed energy (DE) is the most practical
    solution to the problem of defending against rockets, artillery and
    mortars? If so, what is the Army's level of commitment to DE?
        Answer. Directed energy (DE) is certainly one solution the Army is
    considering. We have destroyed over 50 rocket, artillery and mortar
    (RAM) targets with the tactical high energy laser (THEL) testbed at
    White Sands Missile Range. In its current form, however, THEL is not
    easily deployable and could not provide a near-term, full-force
    protection capability against mortars.
        The Army is fully committed to researching and developing DE
    weapons and recently established a product manager's office to
    transition DE applications from research and development (R&D)
    activities to the Soldier as fully integrated and supported systems.
        In order to move technology supporting a counter RAM capability
    forward more aggressively, there are several activities we are pursuing
    concurrently. The Army continues to support the Joint Technology Office
    solid state laser (SSL) development strategy and has used fiscal year
    2005 Congressional adds to help accelerate this process. The Army is
    also working with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to
    accelerate other highly promising SSL technologies and laser
    architectures.
        Over $21 million is budgeted in fiscal year 2006 for continuing SSL
    technology R&D. However, after discontinuing the MTHEL program, it is
    necessary to establish other means to address required parallel
    development of weapons system components other than the laser
    generator, such as pointing and tracking systems, dynamic fire control,
    and integration into existing air defense architectures.
        Question. Given that solid state lasers (SSL) will not be
    operational for at least a decade (by most estimates) do you agree that
    the chemical MTHEL laser is the best near-term option to pursue?
        Answer. The only demonstrated Directed energy (DE) counter rocket,
    artillery and mortar (RAM) solution to date is the THEL chemical laser.
    But unfortunately, in its current form, the THEL is not easily
    deployable and could not provide a near-term, full-force protection
    capability against mortars. Due to the urgency of the requirement, the
    Army is pursuing a counter RAM kinetic energy solution based on an
    existing gun system to defeat the RAM threat and which is available
    sooner than a directed energy solution.
        Question. Please expand on the Army's decision to ``zero'' MTHEL
    and does the Army plan to reconstitute the program with different
    goals?
        Answer. The Army terminated MTHEL for three reasons. To fund other
    higher priority requirements, Israel decided to reduce its funding
    commitment to the program, and user concerns about supportability of
    the chemical laser.
        The Army has no plan to reconstitute the MTHEL program with
    different goals. Due to the urgency of the requirement, the Army
    decided to fund an existing gun system to defeat the near-term rockets,
    artillery and mortar (RAM) threat. The shorter timeline for integrating
    the gun into the counter RAM architecture was a major factor in this
    decision.
        The Army remains committed to directed energy capabilities. The
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology has
    a robust Science and Technology effort aimed at development of solid
    state laser (SSL) technology. Solid state is the technology the Army
    will pursue long term.

                             FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS

        Question. It is my understanding that the Army's biggest technology
    investment, the Future Combat System program, has been restructured to
    begin introducing more advanced network systems to the current force.
        Can you discuss this restructuring initiative and describe the
    near-term benefit to our troops in the field?
        Answer. On July 22, 2004, Army officials announced plans to
    accelerate the delivery of selected Future Combat Systems (FCS) to the
    current force. The plan expands the scope of the program's system
    development and demonstration (SDD) phase by adding four discrete
    ``spirals'' of capabilities at two-year increments for the current
    forces. Spiral 1 will begin fielding in fiscal year 2008 and consist of
    prototypes fielded to the evaluation brigade combat team (E-BCT) for
    their evaluation and feedback. Following successful evaluation,
    production and fielding of Spiral 1 will commence to current force
    units in 2010. This process will be repeated for each successive
    spiral. By 2014, the Army force structure will include one Unit of
    Action (UA) equipped with all 18 + 1 FCS core systems and additional
    modular UAs with embedded FCS capability. This is the centerpiece of
    this adjustment: providing the current force with FCS capability sooner
    rather than later. Examples of the technologies that will be received
    in Spiral 1 are the non-line of sight launch system, integrated
    computer system, a version of the system of systems common operating
    environment, unattended ground sensors and intelligent munitions
    system.
        Question. It is also my understanding that FCS will be comprised of
    a family of networked air and ground-based systems that will ensure
    warfighters and commanders are more interconnected than ever before. I
    assume that testing of these networked systems will require an
    environment that has minimal radio frequency emissions.
        As you know, White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico offers the
    most comprehensive testing environment for military systems in the
    world. Furthermore, Southern New Mexico has relatively low frequency
    interference and may be well-suited for FCS ``system of systems''
    testing.
        Would you care to comment on the type of environment that is
    optimal for FCS systems testing and whether you believe WSMR might suit
    such testing needs?
        Answer. The test program for the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
    detailed in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) was approved by
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense on May 8, 2003 and is presently
    under revision. The test strategy is well integrated into the systems
    engineering process and is characterized by a ``crawl, walk, run''
    paradigm. Multiple integration phases are used to develop and integrate
    the Units of Action (UA) first in simulation and progressing to
    hardware, as simulations are replaced by emulations and subsequently
    prototype hardware. A contiguous thread of modeling & simulation (M&S)
    augmentation and support will be maintained throughout all testing and
    integration phases. These M&S include representations of components,
    systems, forces (UA, UE, Joint, and opposing forces), and threats;
    scenario generators; environment simulators; synthetic stimuli; and
    event controllers. These M&S will serve as input or nodes on the SILs
    and System of Systems Integration Laboratory (SoSIL) and wrap-arounds
    or players in technical field tests (TFTs), limited user tests, force
    development test and experiments, and the initial operational test.
        Essential to the success of the FCS is the Army's resourcing of an
    Evaluation Brigade Combat Team (E-BCT) to generate the first FCS
    equipped UA. The E-BCT is a current force Modular Brigade Combat Team
    whose purpose is to support the development, testing and evaluation of
    FCS core program, spin out technologies, and combat development. The E-
    BCT will transition over time, as the FCS program matures and
    technology develops, to become the first FCS equipped UA.
        The Program Manager-UA (PM UA) will utilize E-BCT Soldiers to
    facilitate a full-motion test strategy, where movement of the Soldiers
    to multiple test sites is minimized, and Soldier interfacing with
    systems is maximized. All human resources will be conserved and
    leveraged by synchronizing test demands and requirements, and focusing
    soldier utilization to drive down program risk. This will be
    accomplished by effectively and efficiently seizing the full
    opportunity to challenge and test to the SoS's highest potential. The
    strategy/plan allows for continuous-mode operations of training and
    learning for the E-BCT, with a robust feedback mechanism to support
    systems design/engineering. This facilitates continuous improvement,
    leading to superior fielded assets to our armed forces. As stated
    above, the current FCS TEMP is under revision to support a MS B update.
    Many potential locations are being considered, White Sands Missile
    Range being one of them. Therefore, PM UA Combined Test Organization
    and the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) are assessing what
    portion of the integrated qualification testing (IQT) can be performed
    at White Sands. This assessment will be included in next iteration of
    the FCS TEMP.
        In addition to IQT, there are opportunities to access progress in a
    field environment during TFTs. A cooperative effort between the Lead
    Systems Integrator (LSI), ATEC, and the PM UA is currently defining
    range requirements and potential infrastructure upgrades to support the
    TFTs. A key to the success of the FCS test program is the SoSIL. The
    SoSIL is a distributed network that connects the LSI facilities in
    Huntington Beach, California (SoCAL Node) to their supplier's
    integration laboratories and the ATEC test ranges over the Defense
    Research Engineering Network. The single point of entry for the LSI to
    the ATEC ranges will be the Inter-range Control Center (IRCC) located
    at the Cox Range Control Facility at White Sands. This facility is
    currently being developed and funded by ATEC as part of its growing
    distributed test mission. The IRCC will enable a key reach back
    capability to the SoCAL Node for FCS systems under test at ATEC ranges.
        In conclusion, PM UA and ATEC are jointly assessing what portion of
    FCS IQT can be executed at White Sands to facilitate the full-motion
    test strategy detailed above.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              JOINT COMMON MISSILE

        Question. The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was terminated in
    Presidential Budget Decision 753. Eight months into Phase 1 of System
    Design and Development, JCM is a remarkably healthy, low-risk program--
    on schedule, on budget, and successfully demonstrating important new
    capabilities for the warfighter. Canceling the JCM ignores the opinion
    of our top military leaders and deprives our service members of a new
    capability they need to survive against future threats. Can you explain
    why this program was targeted?
        Further, the JCM meets Joint Service requirements and fills a
    critical capabilities gap that cannot be met by upgrading existing
    weapon systems. For example, JCM has twice the standoff range of the
    Hellfire, Longbow, and Maverick missiles it will replace on Army, Navy
    and Marine Corps aircraft. The accuracy of its tri-mode seeker will
    give our forces precision-strike lethality to eliminate threats that
    are located near non-combatants. That is why the top-ranking officers
    in all three services that have requested JCM--the Army, Navy, and
    Marine Corps--all believe the program must be restored. How can you
    justify terminating this program?
        Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense issued PBD 753,
    dated December 23, 2004, which terminated the JCM program. The Army is
    engaged with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,
    and the other Services to assess capability and inventory gaps
    generated by the JCM termination and evaluate courses of action which
    mitigate the termination.
        Question. How is the JCM program performing against established
    cost and schedule milestones?
        Answer. The program has performed extremely well with a schedule
    performance index of 0.97 and cost performance index of 0.91 on
    December 23, 2004.
        Question. In particular, what is the projected unit cost for JCM at
    full-rate production vs. the unit cost of a less-capable Hellfire
    missile?
        Answer. The Service's joint cost position identified for JCM an
    average unit production cost of $109,000 (fiscal year 2004 constant
    dollars) per missile based on a missile quantity of 48,613 with
    production planned for fiscal year 2008-18. Total program cost for the
    Army and the Navy is $8.1 billion ($1 billion for system development
    and demonstration and $7.1 billion for procurement). These are the
    baseline costs. The Hellfire model currently in procurement (Metal
    Augmented Charge AGM-114) is estimated at $78,000 (fiscal year 2004
    constant dollars) based on a buy of about 13,250 missiles. The
    estimated unit cost of Longbow Hellfire is $137,000 for a buy of about
    3,500 missiles; however, Longbow Hellfire is no longer in procurement
    and Maverick is estimated at $180,000 with an approximate quantity of
    23,164 (fiscal year 2004 constant dollars) but is no longer in
    procurement for the Navy.

                         167TH THEATER SUPPORT COMMAND

        Question. General Schoomaker, as you probably know, the future of
    Alabama's 167th, which became a Theater Support Command in 2000, is in
    jeopardy due to the Army's push to move from 5 Theater Support Commands
    to 4. Although I do not want to speculate, there appears to be an
    Active Component bias toward the 167th Theater Support Command--which
    comes at the expense of taxpayers' resources. Having one command under
    the control of the National Guard simply makes good sense in terms of
    stewardship of mission and cost. While I originally believed the issue
    would be resolved by moving the 167th under control of NORTHCOM, it now
    appears as if there may be resistance to this idea. In light of this
    development, I would appreciate hearing the Army's take on this
    situation. What is the current status of this issue and when do you
    expect to reach a resolution?
        Answer. As a result of the Army's modular force transformation
    efforts, the Army Staff is revalidating every requirement and examining
    each organization to ensure the capability retained provides the most
    effective use of the force structure available. Part of the
    transformation of Theater Logistics includes conversion of the current
    five theater support commands to somewhat larger, more capable theater
    sustainment commands, each with multiple and separate deployable
    command posts. The exact number and locations of these organizations
    are, as yet, undetermined. The initial analysis and recommendations
    that have been staffed with the combatant commanders, Army components,
    and the National Guard Bureau have included several options for the
    167th Theater Support Command that we continue to explore. A final
    decision on which course of action provides the best solution within
    our force structure requirements is pending a review of the mission
    capability and accessibility required for each type of unit. The
    objective is to ensure an increased capability for Army theater
    logistics and a relevant mission for the Army National Guard.
        The intent is to reach agreement on the number and locations of all
    theater logistics structures in early April.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                             PERFORMANCE OF STRYKER

        Question. General Schoomaker, the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team
    was deployed to Iraq in late 2003. Concerns were expressed prior to its
    deployment that it would be vulnerable to the types of threats
    prevalent in Iraq today. Can you comment on the performance of the Team
    to date?
        Answer. The first deployment of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team
    (SBCT) occurred in December 2003 when SBCT 1, 3d Brigade/2d Infantry
    Division (3/2 IN) took over U.S. military operations in northern Iraq
    from the 101st Airborne Division. The SBCT's unique combination of
    increased number of infantry Soldiers and a robust reconnaissance
    capability, have made the SBCT an extremely effective force in
    Operation Iraqi Freedom when compared to other brigades. The SBCT has
    effectively used speed and situational understanding to kill and
    capture a significant number of enemy fighters. Tactics include the
    rapid movement of infantry to objectives and the employment of snipers
    to reduce civilian casualty threat. They have earned the nickname of
    the ``Ghost Soldiers,'' as the non-compliant forces (NCF) never hear
    them coming. The Stryker vehicle is designed to enable the SBCT to
    maneuver more easily in close and urban terrain while providing
    protection in open terrain.
        Stryker vehicle survivability is exceptional; as of March 14, 2005,
    there have been well over 345 incidents where the vehicles have been
    subjected to hostile action. These vehicles have been involved in over
    168 separate Improvised Explosive Device (IED) incidents in Iraq with
    only 25 vehicles declared battle losses, and over 58 incidents
    involving Rocket Propelled Grenades with one vehicle declared a battle
    loss. There have only been three fatalities directly associated with
    these incidents. A majority of vehicles involved with these 345
    incidents were able to continue the mission or return to base under
    their own power. All non-battle loss vehicles were quickly repaired and
    many returned to duty with within two days.
        The operational readiness (OR) rate for the Stryker vehicles is
    being maintained above 95 percent. As of March 14, 2004, the Strykers
    have been driven over 4.7 million miles in Iraq. There are
    approximately 105 contractors embedded in the Stryker Brigade,
    providing logistical support for the Stryker and other systems. These
    contractors, working closely with the SBCT's mechanics, have played a
    key role in maintaining the high Stryker OR rate. Resupply of Stryker-
    specific and other repair parts to the brigade is also being
    accomplished very effectively.

              PERFORMANCE OF STRYKER IN SMALL SCALE CONTINGENCIES

        Question. General Schoomaker, the Director of Operation Test and
    Evaluation was critical of several of the Stryker vehicle variants in
    his last annual report. Many of the vehicles in the Stryker family were
    judged to have limitations for use in small-scale contingencies. What
    is your response to that criticism?
        Answer. I would say two things. First, the report published in
    January 2004 was completed prior to the Stryker's remarkable combat
    performance. Second, the range of conditions in which the Stryker has
    and is performing clearly demonstrates its value in small-scale
    contingencies.
        The Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is a full spectrum combat
    force. The SBCT is designed and optimized for employment in small scale
    contingencies in complex and urban terrain, confronting low-end and
    mid-range threats that may employ both conventional and asymmetrical
    capabilities. The SBCT's core capabilities are high mobility and an
    ability to achieve decisive action through dismounted infantry assault,
    supported by organic direct and indirect fire platforms, and enabled by
    superior situational understanding.
        True, the January 2004, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
    (DOTE) Beyond Low Rate Initial Production (BLRIP) report identified
    some concerns about the Stryker. Now, over 14 months since data cut-off
    for the referenced DOTE report, we are well into the second successful
    SBCT operational combat deployment.
        During the past 16 months, at least one SBCT, comprised of 311
    Stryker vehicles, has been deployed in Iraq and has continuously
    demonstrated and validated the effectiveness of this organization. The
    Stryker is but one of the many components responsible for the success
    of the SBCT. Thus far, the Stryker has proven to be extremely reliable
    and survivable in combat operations. The Stryker fleet in Iraq has
    logged over 4.7 million miles (over five times the projected annual
    usage level) and has sustained a readiness rate over 95 percent,
    exceeding the Army standard. These vehicles have been exposed to over
    345 incidents of hostile attacks, including over 168 improvised
    explosive device and vehicular improvised explosive device attacks, and
    over 58 rocket propelled grenade attacks. The cumulative resulting
    battle losses from these 345 attacks are 28 Strykers as of March 14,
    2005.
        Army Test and Evaluation Command's (ATEC) January 27, 2004, summary
    assessment of the Stryker family of vehicles stated ``Overall, the
    Stryker family of vehicles is effective, suitable, and survivable;
    Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV) suitability to be determined with
    additional testing. Stryker vehicles contribute to the key operational
    capabilities of the SBCT and achieve the desired capabilities of a
    medium-weight force which is more lethal, mobile, and survivable than
    light forces and more deployable and more easily sustained than heavy
    forces.''
        ATEC's assessment was that ``vehicle performance limitations can be
    mitigated through (1) force augmentation as outlined in current
    doctrine, (2) tactics, techniques and procedures and unit leader
    training, (3) tailored support packages and (4) focused product
    improvement initiatives.'' The DOTE concerns were discussed during the
    Army System Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) in January 2004, where
    it was recommended that a systematic process be implemented to address
    these issues. During the Defense Acquisition Board Review, the Defense
    Acquisition Executive concurred with the ASARC recommendations and
    authorized full rate production of seven of the 10 Stryker
    configurations.
        Actions the Army has already implemented include: refined the
    tactics, techniques and procedures for Stryker employment; provided
    digital capability to all Strykers in the SBCT, ensuring that every
    Stryker crew has full access to situational awareness information;
    corrected the quality control and assurance process for the Modular
    Expandable Armor System (MEXAS) such that all 14.5 mm ceramic applique
    armor meets the correct protection level; issued MEXAS battle damage
    repair kits to the Stryker Brigade in Iraq; improved the silent watch
    capability through routine component replacement with a battery
    possessing higher storage capacity; validated several improvements
    required for extreme cold weather operations; replaced the current
    automotive-style seat belt with an aircraft-style belt that
    accommodates easier use in full combat gear; applied selected force
    protection improvements to enhance crew survivability; and recently
    awarded a production contract for one brigade set of Rocket Propelled
    Grenade add-on armor.
        Actions currently being implemented in production, and planned for
    full retro-fit to previous delivered vehicles include: upgrading the
    remote weapon station with a more powerful thermal imagery sight, laser
    range finder, auto-focus and several other improvements; incorporating
    built in diagnostic capability; and integrating several human factor
    engineering modifications.
        Major design actions currently in development include: improved
    central tire inflation system to accommodate the increased weight of
    add-on armor; and improved crew escape hatches for emergency egress.
        We are continuing to assess emerging technologies and review
    recommendations from the deployed SBCT to further enhance the
    capability, force protection and performance of all the Stryker vehicle
    configurations.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. The subcommittee will reconvene next week,
    March 16, at 10 a.m., when we will hear from the Department of
    the Navy.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, March 9, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 16.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
            ADMIRAL VERN CLARK, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
            GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE
                CORPS

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good morning,
    Admiral and General. We're pleased to welcome the Secretary of
    the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), and the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps to discuss the fiscal year 2006
    budget request, as well as the current status of the Navy and
    Marine Corps operations.
        Secretary England and General Hagee, we welcome you back to
    the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony.
        Admiral Clark, we welcome you here today for your fifth
    budget hearing before this subcommittee. And you have informed
    us, sadly, that this will be your last hearing, as you plan to
    retire this summer, after 37 years of service. We all
    congratulate you for that service, commend you for the way you
    have conducted yourself and your service to the subcommittee,
    but, even more so, for your service to the Nation, and for the
    long-range thinking you're trying to do in the last months of
    your career, so that you can leave a large footprint on the
    Navy.
        Mrs. Hagee, thank you for coming. We're pleased to have you
    here. We welcome you.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department of Navy
    totals $125.7 billion, approximately $6 billion above the level
    provided last year, excluding the supplementals. Despite this
    budget increase, the Navy request includes funding for only
    four ships. The shipbuilding budget has been well publicized,
    and we look forward to further discussion on this topic and
    other Navy budget issues today.
        We also look forward to hearing about the performance of
    our Marine Corps and learning more about the Marine Corps plan
    for reorganizing its force structure, while successfully
    continuing to prosecute the global war on terrorism.
        As always, your full statements will appear in the record.
    I must tell you that the two of us, as co-chairmen, are
    involved in the debate on the floor, so, from time to time, one
    of us may go, and then the other will go when the first one
    returns, hopefully. Hopefully, he'll return.
        Senator Inouye. I will.
        Senator Stevens. Let me turn to our co-chairman, Senator
    Inouye, for his statement, if he wishes to make one.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I join my chairman in welcoming you before this
    subcommittee once again. Let me join my chairman in noting that
    this may well be Admiral Clark's last appearance before this
    subcommittee.
        Admiral, I thank you very much for your service. During
    your tenure, the Navy has undergone some very important
    changes. I recall when you assumed your current position, your
    first goal was to improve readiness and get control over the
    cost of Navy operations.
        You challenged your fleet commanders to work toward
    consistent standards across the Navy communities. Since then,
    you have worked tirelessly with the Secretary and the
    Commandant to streamline the Navy, improving efficiency. And,
    if that weren't enough, you and the Secretary brought a new
    shared vision to the Navy to modernize the fleet, while making
    it more responsive to the Nation's needs. This vision will
    bring the marines and Navy closer together, with the seabasing
    and sea-shield concepts. Sir, I'm certain the Navy will miss
    your steady hand and strong resolve as you depart from your
    position.
        Gentlemen, this is a most challenging time for all of you.
        General Hagee, like the Army, the marines are being called
    upon increasingly for overseas rotations. We know this is
    straining our marines. We have seen it in recent recruiting
    statistics. But, on behalf of all members of the subcommittee,
    I think I can say thank you to all the men and women in the
    Marine Corps for their dedication to duty, their willingness to
    serve us, and their ability to meet any challenge.
        And, Mr. Secretary, no one in this administration has been
    tasked with more duties than you. On top of helping to manage
    the sea services, you have been assigned the responsibility to
    implement a new personnel system for the Defense Department.
    Many would say this has been a thankless task, as you have
    attempted to streamline personnel polices of our Government's
    largest department.
        The budget which you have submitted to this subcommittee is
    not without controversy. The number of V-22s anticipated to be
    purchased is down; so, too, the overall objective for the KC-
    130 tanker. Ship production is down. You have plans to reduce
    your carrier force and a proposed acquisition strategy for
    destroyers which may threaten the financial viability of at
    least one private shipyard.
        We have all seen press reports of how our colleagues have
    received your proposals. Based on your testimony, this
    subcommittee understands why you might decide to compete the
    DD(X) and delay the purchases of the V-22s and ships. But we
    will need to hear your explanation for these controversial
    decisions as we establish a permanent record for the United
    States Senate.
        And, Admiral, once again, thank you very much for your
    continued service. We wish you the very best, sir.
        Admiral Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski, do you have an opening
    comment?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I'm just pleased to be here
    today to hear the testimony of these very fine men.
        You know, we, in Maryland, we're a Navy State, from the
    Naval Academy to Pax River, Indian Head, the hospital ship
    Comfort; the marine presence, from guarding the Academy against
    terrorists to intelligence agencies. And being on the Naval
    Academy Board of Visitors--we're very enthusiastic about
    listening to the leadership and how we can be supportive.
        And I will have other questions.
        Senator Stevens. Well, gentlemen, if Columbus had sailed
    the other way, all those things might be in Alaska. But they're
    not, so----
        Senator Inouye. Or Hawaii.
        Senator Stevens. Or Hawaii. Well, Captain Cook got there
    first, anyway, but we'd be pleased to have your statement, and
    I hope, as we go forward, we can talk how we can maintain the
    Navy that this Nation needs, as a superpower. The two of us are
    very, very worried, as we said to you before, about the rate of
    building our new ships. So maybe this isn't the place, but we
    ought to have some conferences on how to break through this
    barrier and assure that we have the vessels that we need to
    protect this country.
        Secretary England, we'd be pleased to have your statement.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GORDON R. ENGLAND

        Secretary England. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. And,
    Senator Inouye, thank you very much.
        First of all, thanks for the opportunity to be here, and
    thanks for your very nice comments about our men and women in
    uniform, and also your very nice comments about my great friend
    the CNO, Admiral Clark, who, unfortunately, will be retiring
    shortly. I just want to comment that all of our men and women
    in military--our sailors, marines, our airmen, Coast Guard, and
    our soldiers--are doing an absolutely magnificent job, and they
    are, indeed, part of this greatest generation. I also thank
    everyone on this subcommittee for your financial support of our
    great Department of the Navy, but also for the support you
    personally provide for our men and women in uniform.
        Regarding your comments about the naval forces, and
    particularly our ships, I will comment that we are in the
    process of making a major transition for our naval forces. And
    this is a very, very challenging and stressful time for some of
    our people in the Department of Navy, both our civilian and our
    military people, and I know it's also a stressful time for our
    valued industrial base, and perhaps even for some of the
    Members of the Congress. Change is always difficult, but it is
    vitally important that we go forward and structure the Navy and
    Marine Corps for the capabilities that we will need in the
    future. And we have not yet fully transitioned from the
    deepwater-centric force of the cold war to the types of ships
    and capabilities that we need to fight the war on terror while,
    at the same time, deterring and, if necessary, defeating future
    threats.
        Now, the leadership team before you today, we have been
    transitioning the naval forces for the past 4 years, and this
    year, fiscal year 2006, is the apex of that change. This year,
    per plans over this period of time, the ship procurement
    funding is down in fiscal year 2006. But that's due to the fact
    that we are turning the corner to new capabilities and on the
    verge of buying new capabilities.
        Our shipbuilding research and development (R&D) is at a
    peak in fiscal year 2006. We have increased our R&D 325 percent
    from 2002 to 2006; or, in absolute terms, our R&D in
    shipbuilding has increased from $705 million to over $2.3
    billion in this year's budget. Now, after 2006, that R&D will
    decrease, while our planned procurement account correspondingly
    increases with the number of ships we will procure. So you are
    at a dip at this point, as we transition to new types of ships
    for the United States Navy.
        We are moving to a different force. It's going to be
    smaller. It's going to be more agile. It's going to be faster
    and more adaptable, and more capable than, we believe, any
    naval force we have had in our Nation's 229 year history. And
    we do need your help to bring this about. And we do look
    forward to having this discussion with you today.
        I do want to make one comment about the great people who
    serve. We do have absolutely magnificent people who serve
    today. They're well educated, they're highly trained, they're
    highly motivated, and they are dedicated to protecting and
    defending our Nation. And they have performed heroically. We've
    had brave young men and women at sea and ashore in Iraq and
    Afghanistan and throughout the world fighting the enemies of
    freedom. And, as Secretary, I'll tell you, I am absolutely
    blessed to be able to serve these magnificent men and women,
    and the leaders of those magnificent men and women who are here
    with me today, the CNO and the Commandant.
        As we look back, the comments of the CNO, after 37 years,
    who is retiring, I do want to make a very brief comment, but a
    very sincere and heartfelt comment. CNO and I are very, very
    close friends, and I have great, great admiration for the CNO,
    for his professional leadership, his ethical leadership, and
    his willingness to tackle very, very tough issues and bring
    about great change in our naval forces. And I have just the
    highest respect for his vision and his capabilities. It has
    been a delight. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve
    with him these past 4 years. He still has a few months to go,
    and, Senator Stevens--Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right, we
    still have high expectations to utilize his capabilities and to
    leave a legacy and a vision as he goes forward into retirement.
        To Vern and Connie Clark, I do want to wish them both fair
    winds and following seas as they move into a new life together.
    And God bless them for their great service to America.
        With that, I will turn this over to Admiral Clark and
    General Hagee for their opening statements. We, of course, are
    looking forward to a dialogue with you this morning, because
    this is a very, very important year for the Department of Navy.
    It's absolutely critical that we go forward with our new
    programs, and programs that we can afford to fit our budget.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thanks, again, for the opportunity to be here. We look
    forward to the dialogue. And I'll turn it over to Admiral Vern
    Clark.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Honorable Gordon R. England
             winning today . . . while transforming to win tomorrow

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear today.
        The Navy and Marine Corps Team continues to answer our Nation's
    call in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and in the establishment of
    stability and security in the world's trouble spots. From combat
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to tsunami relief in Indonesia, the
    Navy and Marine Corps Team has proven ready to meet any task and answer
    any challenge. Throughout 2004, the unique capability the Naval
    Services brought to our joint forces was a central element of our
    Nation's military power.
        Outstanding performance in 2004 validated the high return on your
    past investment in our combat readiness, people, and unique maritime
    warfighting capabilities. The challenge for the future is ensuring we
    are maintaining the proper investment balance between the needs of
    today and the requirements of tomorrow. Our fiscal year 2006 Budget
    request strikes that balance. It delivers the appropriate readiness
    posture at the right cost to win the GWOT, to support today's military
    needs, and to continue the transformation needed to ensure that we win
    tomorrow's fights as well. We are good stewards of the taxpayer's
    money, however, no amount of new capability and organizational
    reshaping will matter if we cannot hold down costs. The challenge in
    the coming decade is to stabilize the rising costs of new weapon
    systems, operations and maintenance, and personnel.
        In the past four years, our country has been incredibly supportive
    of the Navy and Marine Corps Team. Since 2001, when I first took over
    as the Secretary of the Navy, the Department's budget has increased
    from over $94 billion to over $125 billion in fiscal year 2006. Your
    investment has been used to significantly increase our operational
    readiness, fund the research and development required to provide the
    foundation for several transformation programs, begin the procurement
    of new classes of ships and aircraft, properly price the acquisition
    accounts, and fairly compensate our people. The Department is eternally
    grateful for your confidence in your Navy and Marine Corps.
        The Department has made significant progress towards achieving the
    transformation goals set forth in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
    (QDR). However, we continue to face the challenge of making the Naval
    Team more efficient to develop an ever more effective fighting force.
    When realized, these efficiencies will not only free up valuable
    resources but also allow the Navy and Marine Corps Team to better
    augment the total joint force. The 2005 QDR provides an opportunity to
    continue to reshape the Department to meet its current and future
    security challenges.
        Our Navy and Marine Corps are actively engaged in combat
    operations--we have a shared responsibility to ensure our Sailors and
    Marines are trained, equipped and prepared for the fights we ask them
    to undertake. The fiscal year 2006 Budget meets these requirements.

                              WINNING TODAY . . .
                                   OPERATIONS

        Winning the GWOT is our number one priority. We continue to support
    the GWOT through naval combat forces that are capable and relevant to
    the missions assigned.
    Global War on Terror (GWOT)
        During my last testimony to this Committee, the Marine Corps was
    beginning preparations to send the First Marine Expeditionary Force (I
    MEF) to Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). Currently, we
    have over 34,000 Marines and 3,000 Navy personnel in Iraq taking part
    in combat operations and providing stability and security in the Al
    Anbar, An Najaf, and Karbala Provinces. Their innovative pre-deployment
    combat skills training, rapid modifications of combat equipment to meet
    evolving threats, and their emphasis on cultural and language
    capabilities contributed to considerable accomplishments in this
    complex region. Marines are currently executing multiple security,
    urban combat, counter-insurgency, command and control, and force
    protection missions with great confidence and skill, in the face of an
    adaptable and dangerous enemy.
        Naval efforts in Iraq include not only the Marine Corps but also
    virtually every type of deployable Naval asset in our inventory. Navy
    and Marine carrier-based aircraft flew over 21,000 hours, dropped over
    54,000 pounds of ordnance and played a vital role in the fight for
    Fallujah. Last year over 1,000 active and reserve Seabees were
    responsible for managing construction projects throughout the I MEF
    area of responsibility. Naval Coastal Warfare forces provided security
    for Iraqi oil terminals and thwarted terrorist forces from disrupting
    one of the world's largest energy supplies. Finally, hundreds of Naval
    medical personnel deployed to Iraq in support of Marine forces. All
    have served with pride and compassion, providing quality medical care
    to wounded American and Iraqi personnel.
        In Afghanistan this past spring, the Marine Corps provided, on
    short-notice, a regimental headquarters, an infantry battalion and a
    combined arms Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). This Marine force was a
    major portion of the combined joint task force assigned to counter a
    suspected Taliban ``Spring Offensive.'' This force was a key element in
    setting the conditions for the successful election that has advanced
    the process of establishing a secure and stable government in
    Afghanistan. They continue to provide both ground and aviation forces--
    currently an infantry battalion, elements of two helicopter squadrons,
    and training teams--to protect and foster this new democracy.
        Terrorist networks have a wide range of options to move personnel
    and cargo by sea--from containers, to merchant ships, to small dhows.
    The United States Naval forces are well trained to carry out the
    mission of deterring, delaying, and disrupting the movement of
    terrorists and terrorist-related material at sea. In support of the
    GWOT, Naval forces conducted over 2,200 boarding of merchant ships.
        During the year, the Navy and Marine Corps will conduct a major
    rotation of our Central Command deployed forces. Many of these units
    have previously deployed to this theater. We continue to aggressively
    adapt our training and equipment to the changing threat.
    Global Presence/Flexibility.
        Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.--The Navy and Marine
    Corps Team can rapidly respond to crises around the globe, whether they
    are humanitarian or combat-related without impeding our ongoing
    commitments to combating terrorism. We continually train for
    humanitarian assistance missions in order to respond rapidly and
    efficiently to large-scale disasters.
        The Navy and Marine Corps provided assistance to the governments of
    Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and other affected nations as they dealt
    with the effects of the earthquake and tsunami. At the peak of this
    effort, the Department of the Navy (DON) had more than 13,000 Sailors
    and Marines afloat providing humanitarian assistance. Led by forces
    from the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and the Bonhomme
    Richard Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), the Navy and Marine Corps
    Team delivered over six million pounds of relief supplies to the people
    affected by the disaster that swept Southeast Asia on December 26th.
        In addition, nine P-3C reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft
    supported search and rescue efforts, while the High Speed Vessel (HSV)
    Swift, an aluminum hulled catamaran, provided high-speed transport to
    the shore. USNS Mercy is providing a base of operations for joint
    United States military medical organizations and international
    nongovernmental and private relief operations. The hospital ship is
    supporting medical units ashore with internal medicine, pediatric,
    dental, mental health and infectious disease control. Additionally,
    over 400 Seabees are deployed to the region to provide a variety of
    disaster recovery efforts such as clearing roads, removing debris,
    assessing damage, performing port surveys and assisting in offloading
    MPF ships.
        Homeland Security.--Under the National Security Presidential
    Directive (NSPD-41) signed by the President this past December, we are
    continuing to cultivate relationships and develop capabilities to
    maximize the advantage that the maritime domain brings to homeland
    security. We are broadening our relationship with the navies of our
    international allies to prosecute the GWOT. We are expanding the
    Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to other countries and working
    bilateral boarding initiatives in all hemispheres. We are integrating
    intelligence and command and control systems with other governmental
    agencies like the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) to effectively evaluate the maritime
    environment for anything that could adversely influence the security,
    safety or economy of the United States and our allies. We are
    developing the Navy's role in the Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
    concept to identify threats as early and as distant from our borders as
    possible. We are working with other parts of the Department of Defense
    (DOD) and with DHS to develop a comprehensive national maritime
    security response plan to address specific security threats and command
    and control relationships. Lastly, this past October, the Navy, in a
    cooperative agreement with the USCG, transferred four patrol craft to
    the USCG for use in homeland security. Everything we do in the maritime
    domain will take into consideration the broad implication to homeland
    security.
        Surge Capability.--The GWOT requires that the Navy operate
    differently in order to be ready and responsive. We continue our
    successful readiness transformation under the Fleet Response Plan
    (FRP). The goal of the FRP is to provide the Nation with five or six
    CSGs deployed or ready to deploy within 30 days and an additional one
    or two CSGs ready to go within 90 days. The FRP aims to transform the
    fleet into a more effective force by creating a culture of readiness;
    meeting new readiness and surge thresholds; changing manning,
    maintenance and training processes to support surge and deployment; and
    lengthening inter-deployment cycles.
        The readiness efforts developed to support the FRP allowed the Navy
    to surge the USS Bataan, Boxer, and Kearsarge and enabled Marine forces
    to quickly redeploy in support of operations in Iraq. Last year's fleet
    surge exercise, ``Summer Pulse 2004'', successfully demonstrated the
    Navy's ability to operate seven carriers simultaneously in five
    theaters under the FRP.
        Law of the Sea Convention.--Today, the Navy has undisputed command
    of the seas. Joining the convention will support ongoing military
    operations while preserving future access for the force. The CNO and I
    firmly support United States' accession to the Law of the Sea
    Convention.

                              SAILORS AND MARINES

        Smart, motivated and capable people are a key element to any
    successful transformation effort. Our Navy and Marine Corps are
    increasingly a technologically advanced maritime force and we are in
    competition with the private sector to attract and retain the best men
    and women we can find. Accordingly, our budget includes a 3.1 percent
    DOD-wide basic pay raise for all military personnel. The budget
    supports reduced Navy end strength resulting from the way we manage
    military human capital. We will accomplish all assigned missions with
    these reduced levels by changing our force structure, gaining
    efficiencies from technology, altering our workforce mix, and adopting
    new manning practices.
        Concurrent with this commitment to provide an appropriate level of
    pay and benefits to our Sailors, Marines, and their families is a
    responsibility to operate this Department as efficiently and
    effectively as possible. While we want the very best people to serve in
    our Navy and Marine Corps, we don't want a single person more than we
    need to properly operate the force. Job satisfaction comes not only
    from compensation, but also from meaningful service.
    Protecting Our Sailors and Marines
        In response to growing force protection concerns in Iraq and
    Afghanistan the Department has expeditiously acquired technology and
    hardware to equip our Marines and Sailors for current wartime
    operations. In excess of $600 million has been reprogrammed to support
    over 120 warfighting requirements including those focused on counter-
    fire, counter-improvised explosive devices, and counter-rocket
    propelled grenade technologies. Initiatives include:
        Vehicle Hardening.--We reprogrammed $239 million in fiscal year
    2004 Naval funding to support various Marine Corps vehicle-hardening
    programs. Throughout this effort, both the Marine Corps Systems Command
    and the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab have worked with the Army
    Developmental Test Command to test and rapidly assess various ballistic
    materials to include ballistic glass, armor, and ceramic materials for
    use in vehicle hardening. To date over 4,000 vehicles have been
    hardened. Other vehicle hardening initiatives include the Marine Armor
    Kit (MAK) for the HMMWV and the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement
    (MTVR) Armor System (MAS) and Gunner shields. MAK and MAS armor will
    replace the interim (first generation) and zonal (second generation)
    armor with an integrated, comprehensive (improved perimeter, top, and
    under-body) armor kit. One hundred forty-nine MAKs have been installed
    in support of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deployment as
    part of the next rotation. MAK installation in theater will begin as
    soon as February 2005 as the operational situation allows. MAS will
    begin low rate initial production in April 2005 with full rate
    production by June 2005. Gunner shields provide an armored turret as an
    additional level of protection for gunners operating in HMMWVs and
    MTVRs; to date over 1,600 are in service.
        Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Technology and Equipment.--The
    Department has reprogrammed over $28 million for the testing,
    assessment and fielding of technology and equipment to counter the IED
    threat. Specific focus areas include robots, IED electronic
    countermeasures, X-Ray systems, and specialized search dogs.
        Personal Protective Equipment.--Every Sailor, Marine and
    Departmental Civilian is issued a complete set of body armor before
    going into Iraq or Afghanistan. To meet this requirement Marine Corps
    Systems Command has procured over 31,000 Armor Protection Enhancement
    Systems as an additional capability to augment the Outer Tactical Vest
    and the Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plate. Over 36,000 SAPI
    plates have been procured. Additionally over 84,000 pairs of ballistic
    protective goggles have been procured. Other initiatives, such as an
    improved lightweight combat helmet, lower face and body armor, are in
    development.
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).--UAV efforts include the Dragon Eye
    and Scan Eagle initiatives. The Dragon Eye is a lightweight, man
    portable system designed to give the small unit leader a reconnaissance
    and surveillance capability to see over the next hill or around the
    next building. Thirty-three Dragon Eye UAV systems have been used in
    Iraq. In addition, I MEF is battle testing two Scan Eagle systems
    consisting of 14 aerial vehicles. The Scan Eagle provides the MEF with
    a persistent (24 hours a day) electro-optical Intelligence Surveillance
    Reconnaissance (ISR) capability.
        Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV).--In addition to the robots deployed
    in Iraq for counter IED operations, 12 Dragon Runner man portable UGVs
    used as mobile ISR systems have been fielded. The system is a low
    profile UGV and is being used for small unit reconnaissance and IED
    investigations.
        Other force protection initiatives include language translation
    devices, counter-sniper technology, medical advancements, helicopter
    ballistic protection, and advancements in the tactics, techniques and
    procedures for urban operations.
    Recruiting/Retention
        The DON continues to successfully recruit our Nation's finest young
    people while carefully forecasting future recruiting requirements. The
    Navy has met its recruiting goals in each of the last six years, while
    the Marine Corps has met recruiting goals for the last nine years.
    Coupled with higher retention rates, our recruiting success has allowed
    the Navy and Marine Corps to focus on critically manned ratings and
    Military Occupation Specialties (MOS) and on improving recruit quality.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Navy exceeded its recruiting goal and
    attained a 50 percent increase in recruits with college experience
    while at the same time increasing the number of recruits with high
    school diplomas. The Marine Corps also exceeded recruiting goals while
    at the same time 97 percent of their recruits had a high school diploma
    (above the goal of 95 percent). Even with the improved economic
    conditions and higher recruit quality standards, the Navy and Marine
    Corps are on track for meeting their 2005 goals.
        Retaining the best and brightest Sailors and Marines has always
    been a core objective to our continued success. To date in fiscal year
    2005, strong reenlistment activity has occurred along with Navy
    attrition rates at or near 15 year lows. The Marine Corps also
    continued their strong performance in this area by meeting their
    retention goals for the 14th consecutive year. A key to these successes
    has been the DON's aggressive program to enhance quality of service and
    quality of life through innovative programs that ensure our Sailors and
    Marines and their families continue to view the Navy and Marine Corps
    as their career of choice. Targeted and special pays continue to have
    the desired impact on reenlistments, while maintaining Selective Re-
    enlistment Bonus (SRB) funding is proving essential to sustaining
    retention of critical skills.
    Safety
        The Navy and Marine Corps continues to aggressively pursue the
    Secretary of Defense's two-year goal to reduce mishaps by 50 percent,
    from the fiscal year 2002 baseline, by the end of fiscal year 2005. At
    the end of Calendar Year 2004, the Department was on track to meet the
    50 percent reduction in over 70 percent of the targeted areas. For
    example, the Marine Corps fiscal year 2004 Class A aviation mishap rate
    was reduced by over 76 percent and Marine Corps Personal Motor Vehicle
    (PMV) fatalities dropped 30 percent from the fiscal year 2002 baseline.
    An aggressive return to fundamentals in order to revitalize Operational
    Risk Management (ORM) principles is successfully targeting our aviation
    mishap rates. Over $54.5 million, across the Future Years Defense Plan
    (FYDP), was added in the fiscal year 2006 Budget for military flight
    operations quality assurance--a process to help refine the use of
    recorded flight data to reduce aircrew error and to achieve greater
    efficiencies in aircraft maintenance.
        The Department is pursuing Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) status and has
    achieved significant reduction in lost workdays due to injuries at key
    installations. A professional safety community and safety intern
    program for our civilian personnel has also been established.
        The DON has embraced safety as a readiness multiplier. The Naval
    leadership team (Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Commandant of the
    Marine Corps (CMC) and Secretary of the Navy) emphasized safety and
    mishap reduction as one of our published top ten 2005 objectives for
    the Department.
    Family Support
        Housing Initiatives.--Ensuring service members and their families
    have access to quality housing continues to be a DON top priority. The
    fiscal year 2006 Budget request continues the effort to eliminate
    inadequate family and bachelor housing by fiscal year 2007 through a
    three pronged strategy consisting of privatization of housing, improved
    housing allowances, and military construction. Additionally, housing
    allowances have been increased to eliminate out-of-pocket housing
    expenses for our military personnel. Finally, fifteen Navy and Marine
    Corps family housing privatization projects totaling over 26,000 homes
    have been awarded to date. In addition, we continue on path to provide
    sea duty Sailors with off-ship quarters by 2008 under the Navy's
    ``Homeport Ashore'' initiative.
        Healthcare.--Providing quality medical care to our Sailors,
    Marines, and their families is a vital part of the DON's ability to
    fight the GWOT and execute our many worldwide missions. Navy medicine
    continues to ensure that our Sailors and Marines are physically and
    mentally ready for whatever challenges lie ahead. Providing outstanding
    medical care is a commitment we proudly make, however it is a budgetary
    challenge.
        To meet the requirements of the GWOT, Navy Medicine has developed
    and improved methods to expedite care for our forward deployed forces
    around the world. For example:
      --The ten-bed Expeditionary Medical Unit (EMU) is providing Navy
            medicine with new response capabilities in combat situations.
      --The Forward Resuscitative Surgery Systems (FRSS) are highly mobile,
            six-bed emergency rooms now deployed as part of the Marine
            Corps' Combat Service Support Company. Through the FRSS, Navy
            trauma doctors are available during the ``golden hour,'' the
            critical period within 60 minutes of an injury.
      --Forward Deployed Preventive Medicine Units (FDPMU) have been
            created to provide quick, flexible and agile responses to a
            host of medical contingencies including weapons of mass
            destruction. These highly specialized units are staffed with
            preventive medicine physicians, industrial hygienists, hospital
            corpsmen, environmental and radiation health specialists,
            microbiologists and entomologists and have been deployed in
            Iraq, Haiti and other remote locations around the globe. The
            FDPMU's focus is on decreasing disease and non-battle injuries
            through health surveillance, environmental monitoring and
            education.
      --The Disaster Preparedness, Vulnerability Analysis, Training and
            Exercise (DVATEX) program was developed to evaluate and test
            military, federal and local community responsiveness. DVATEX
            includes a military treatment facility, threat vulnerability
            and capability assessment, and provides training in medical and
            operational management.
        Navy medicine will continue to evolve to meet the demands of an
    ever-changing battlefield and deliver medical care anywhere around the
    world. Navy medicine is performing its critical mission to promote,
    protect, and restore the health of DON service members, families, and
    retirees, while at the same time ensuring the highest level of
    emergency preparedness.
        Care of Injured Marines and Sailors.--The DON is working closely
    with the DOD to develop new strategies and initiatives that improve
    support to our injured personnel and their families. In an effort to
    improve the immediate and long-term care for injured Marines and their
    families, the Marine Corps has created the Marine for Life--Injured
    Support Program. The program provides a single organization to act as
    the primary patient advocate to improve medical care, provide family
    support, eliminate seams in care, and increase transition assistance
    for disabled Marines. This program began limited operations in early
    January 2005.
        The DON is developing the Injured Marines and Sailors Initiative,
    to formulate policies and procedures to achieve the following
    objectives in support of Marines and Sailors wounded in combat
    operations:
      --Ensure every Marine and Sailor who desires to remain in the active
            component is provided the opportunity to do so.
      --Ensure that every Marine and Sailor who desires to work within the
            DON or Federal/State government is provided the opportunity to
            do so.
      --Ensure that every Marine and Sailor that desires to work in the
            private sector or to attend school is provided the opportunity
            to do so.
        A survey of injured service members revealed that over ninety
    percent of Marines and Sailors expressed a desire to remain in service.
    In order to allow injured service members the opportunity to work in
    the Pentagon, the DOD initiated Operation Warfighter. This program
    seeks to reintroduce severely injured service members back into the
    workforce. Additionally, the DON in cooperation with the DOD Joint
    Severely Injured Operations Center and the Marine For Life--Injured
    Support Program is reaching-back to discharged and separated Marines
    and Sailors to render employment assistance, family counseling, and
    transition assistance through Veterans Administration and other
    government agencies.
        Family Programs.--In support of the GWOT, the Navy established
    ``Extended Hours'' child care centers for watch-standers and shift
    workers, ensuring our Sailors are mission ready around the clock. These
    successful, 24/7 centers, located in Norfolk and Honolulu, have
    decreased missed man-hours and provided piece of mind to our Sailors as
    they perform their duties in support or our Nation.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        The Naval Services are rotational and expeditionary, requiring
    additional funding not in the baseline budget for long and extensive
    contingency operations. The fiscal year 2005 supplemental will request
    funding for incremental war related costs not included in the baseline
    budget. This request includes essential warfighting and force
    protection equipment, replacement of destroyed equipment, anticipated
    attrition repair costs due to accelerated usage and replenishment of
    ammunition. These funds will help sustain the fighting force and enable
    recovery from the accumulated demands on our material assets.

                       WHILE TRANSFORMING TO WIN TOMORROW
                       SHAPING OUR 21ST CENTURY MANPOWER

        At the heart of our combat capability and the future transformation
    outlined in Naval Power 21 are people who are well trained, well led,
    and adequately compensated. America's Naval forces are combat ready due
    to the dedication and motivation of individual Sailors, Marines, and
    civilians. We will continue to dedicate resources on four fronts:
    recruiting the right people, retaining the right people, reducing
    attrition, and training our people to meet the challenges of the 21st
    century.
    Human Capital Strategy
        The DON is developing the Human Capital Strategy (HCS) that will
    provide a new framework to assess, train, develop and distribute our
    manpower. The Department faces a number of significant challenges as it
    continues its transformation to a more agile and technology-based
    force. Our strategy envisions a new human capital management system
    that leverages technology to allow each individual to maximize their
    capability to make valuable contributions toward achieving our mission.
    Central to the strategy is the need to fully understand the manpower
    requirement of our future force. This will allow us to tailor our total
    manpower needs, expanding or contracting where it is required. Our
    strategy is aligned with DOD's Human Capital Initiative and responds to
    the President's Management Agenda (PMA) and the priorities of the
    Secretary of Defense. The HCS represents the first step in what will be
    a complex process to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The HCS
    goals include:
      --Implement the National Security Personnel System for the
            Department's civilian force.
      --Transform our military personnel force by creating a modern human
            capital management system to replace the Department's legacy
            human resources systems and achieve the objectives of Naval
            Power 21.
      --Achieve active /reserve integration by rebalancing requirements and
            capabilities.
        A key component of HCS is the Sea Warrior program, which is the
    Navy's initiative to develop 21st century Sailors and is the ``people''
    part of Sea Power 21. This initiative takes into account new platforms,
    technologies, and rotational crewing concepts (Sea Swap) that will
    revolutionize crew sizing, and provide interactive computer based tools
    and training techniques. The goals of Sea Warrior include:
      --A mission-centric force that is effective and efficient.
      --A Navy that maximizes the value of service for all of our Sailors
            and civilians.
      --A more effective work distribution across the work force.
      --A work and life balance.
      --Recruitment and retention of a diverse range of Sailors and
            civilians possessing a wide scope of knowledge, skills and
            experience.
        The Sea Warrior concept and other manpower initiatives such as more
    efficient infrastructure manning, improved training techniques and the
    decommissioning of older, manpower intensive platforms will allow the
    Navy to reduce active end strength from 373,197 in fiscal year 2004 to
    352,700 in fiscal year 2006.
    Military-to-Civilian Conversions
        Military-to-Civilian conversions are progressing as planned. The
    programmed conversions target non-warfighting functions currently
    staffed and performed by military personnel. Because the military-to-
    civilian conversions are a key component of the Department's objective
    to reduce military authorizations, we have intentionally exceeded the
    established DOD targets. The Navy is scheduled to convert over 2,000
    military billets to civilian positions this fiscal year. The Marine
    Corps is programmed to convert over 1,700 billets in fiscal year 2005.
    While the Navy is principally using this tool to drawdown end strength,
    the Marine Corps is using the military-to-civilian conversions to help
    realign Marines into high-demand specialties and create additional
    warfighting capabilities, such as two additional infantry battalions.
    As part of the Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's
    Management Agenda, DOD receives credit for converting military members
    now doing commercial functions into war-fighters and other core defense
    functions.
    Active Reserve Integration
        The Reserve Component remains an integral part of our Navy and
    Marine Corps Team. Since September 11, 2001, the Navy has mobilized
    over 25,000 reserve personnel (2,000 of these twice), with
    approximately 3,600 currently mobilized. This is from a drilling
    reservist population of just over 69,000. The Marine Corps has
    mobilized 32,000 reserve personnel from an authorized Selected Reserve
    end strength of 39,600 and just over 4,100 from the Individual Ready
    Reserve. Currently over 13,000 reserve Marines are on active duty.
        The Navy's Zero Based Review is validating the Navy Reserve mission
    requirements and associated billet structure, creating efficiencies,
    and allowing resources to be more effectively integrated into Navy
    operations. Our vision is to create one fully integrated Navy Team and
    the Navy's active reserve integration is the cornerstone of that
    effort. We are aligning organizations, training together, consolidating
    resources and assets, and financially planning as one, so we can better
    operate as one team and ``train like we fight.''
        The Navy and Marine Corps will continually measure its reserve
    billet structure and capabilities against evolving warfighting
    requirements to fill critical billets when needed. Early
    responsiveness, relieving stressed career fields, and employing
    innovative management practices will continually be addressed by both
    services. The Navy and Marine Corps reserve mobilization is a
    requirements-driven process and reservists, trained and ready, are
    making significant contributions. While the numbers of mobilized
    reserves can fluctuate as GWOT requirements dictate, our objective is
    use the efforts stated above to keep the number of mobilized personnel
    at a minimum.
    Strategically Focus Naval Education and Training
        Education and training of our Sailors and Marines is critical to
    implementing the Naval Power 21 transformation and ensuring our
    continued combat effectiveness. To more effectively and efficiently
    train our forces the Department is transitioning its training concepts
    and methods from the traditional schoolhouse classroom approach to
    processes that involve the use of simulators, trainers, and other
    computer-based interactive training curriculums. The pace at which
    technology is changing tests our Sailor's and Marine's abilities to
    innovate and adapt, as well as to apply knowledge and experience to new
    and dynamic situations. Old paradigms governing training and education
    must change to meet future technological challenges. It is essential
    that our Sailors and Marines remain on the cutting edge and for our
    leadership to commit to a lifelong educational program. The future
    demands a more highly educated Naval Service capable of operating in an
    environment of ever increasing technical complexity. We intend to meet
    that demand by providing increased opportunity for all Sailors and
    Marines to commit to life-long learning.
    National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
        The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act allowed the
    DOD to establish a new human resource management system for DOD
    civilians known as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). This
    legislation provides flexibility in the hiring and management of
    civilian workers and links pay to mission accomplishment and
    performance. The NSPS reforms will provide supervisors and managers
    greater flexibility in managing our civil service employees, facilitate
    competition for high quality talent, offer compensation that is
    competitive with the private sector, and reward outstanding service.
    Properly executed, these changes will also assist us in better
    utilizing the active duty force by making it easier to employ civilians
    in jobs currently filled by uniformed military personnel.
        Workers will be converted to the new system in three spirals.
    Spiral One will include approximately 300,000 Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
    Air Force, and other DOD civilian employees and will be rolled out in
    three phases over an 18-month period beginning in July 2005. Spiral One
    includes over 80,000 DON civilian employees. Spiral Two will comprise
    the remainder of the eligible workforce and will be initiated following
    an assessment of Spiral One and after the Secretary of Defense
    certifies the Department's performance management system. Spiral Three
    would comprise the personnel at DOD labs, if current legislative
    restrictions are eliminated.

                          IMPROVING BUSINESS PRACTICES

        Throughout my time as Secretary of the Navy, we have been faced
    with the challenge of making the Naval Team more efficient in order to
    develop a more effective fighting force. These efficiencies will not
    only free up valuable resources but also allow the Navy and Marine
    Corps Team to better augment the total joint force. Our recent
    performance indicates the business initiatives we are pursuing are on
    the right track. Highlights of our business initiatives are discussed
    below.
    Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Program
        The DON ERP initiative has created the framework that will enable
    the transformation of key acquisition, logistics, and financial
    business activities into an integrated network of decision-making
    processes. This past August the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
    (JROC) approved the Navy ERP Operational Requirements Document (ORD)
    and cleared the way for the Navy to purchase ERP software and hire an
    integration contractor. With the fiscal year 2006 Budget, the Navy will
    continue to capitalize on demonstrated ERP technology advances in
    creating and disseminating decision-making information. The ERP program
    is expected to continue to improve integration, leverage economy-of-
    scale, consolidate legacy systems and software using the best business
    and commercial practices available. The first release is scheduled for
    initial deployment in fiscal year 2006.
    Sea Enterprise
        Sea Enterprise will improve organizational alignment, refine
    requirements and invest resources to re-capitalize, transform, and
    increase the combat capability of our Naval force. To improve
    efficiency, Sea Enterprise has begun initiatives to improve
    productivity and cost effectiveness, reduce manpower investments,
    streamline processes and organizations, and leverage technology.
    Together these initiatives will produce tens of billions in savings for
    the Department.
    Continuous Improvement
        The Navy and Marine Corps Team continues to implement continuous
    improvement initiatives consistent with the goals of the PMA that
    enable realignment of resources to increase our output and re-
    capitalize our force. The cornerstone of our continuous improvement
    effort is the implementation of industry proven Lean and Six Sigma
    efficiency methodologies in our day-to-day operations. Our industrial
    activities are all institutionalizing closed loop continuous
    improvement practices. These initiatives enable us to increase our
    combat capabilities with the expectation that we become more efficient,
    agile, flexible and reliable at a reduced cost of doing business.
    Commander Navy Installations (CNI)
        Since the establishment of CNI, we have begun to align shore assets
    in support of Navy requirements, to find efficiencies for Navy
    recapitalization and to provide consistent shore installation services
    in order to allow the operational commanders and major claimants to
    focus on primary missions. CNI is the single responsible office for
    Navy shore installations and the services they provide. It includes
    sixteen Navy regions and 98 installations. CNI is providing operating
    forces support, community support, base support and mission support to
    enhance the Navy's combat power. We are providing product and services
    at the right place, at the right time, at the right levels and at the
    right cost to achieve the right fleet readiness.
    Acquisition Excellence
        We have substantially streamlined our business practices to work
    toward a more efficient Navy and Marine Corps. By emulating smart
    business practices from commercial industry, we have made management
    teams more product-oriented, and have pushed responsibility, authority
    and accountability down to the operational unit(s) or activities
    wherever possible. We are developing leaders with a better
    understanding of business strategies, cost control, program risk and
    rapid flexible design. In 2004, we worked with industry to identify
    effective ways, including the use of appropriate profit and incentive
    arrangements, to encourage improved performance under Navy and Marine
    Corps contracts.
    Naval Acquisition Integrity Office
        To help guard against the ever-present danger of procurement fraud,
    the DON is establishing a new Naval Acquisition Integrity Office. This
    office will coordinate all parts of the procurement fraud program,
    provide training and guidance on procurement fraud matters, serve as
    the DON's central point of contact on this issue, establish and
    maintain a centralized data base for monitoring procurement fraud, and
    interact with other DOD procurement fraud programs. This organization
    will provide the necessary deterrent, detection, protection, and
    recovery functions through increased awareness, a streamlined reporting
    process, internal consistency, and improved communication among all the
    stakeholders.
    Maintenance Initiatives
        SHIPMAIN.--SHIPMAIN is a fleet wide initiative designed to improve
    the efficiency of ship maintenance and modernization. The primary
    mission of SHIPMAIN is to generate savings through improvements in the
    surface ship maintenance and modernization planning processes. SHIPMAIN
    is developing a single process that ensures that the right maintenance
    is identified and that it is performed at the right maintenance level
    at the right time.
        One Shipyard Concept.--The One Shipyard Concept is designed to best
    utilize the Nation's four public and two private nuclear shipyards and
    contractor support. Initially established to build commonality and
    leverage best practices across the nuclear capable shipyards, it has
    gained influence across the entire ship repair enterprise. One Nuclear
    Shipyard concept provides the Navy the flexibility to handle
    maintenance surge, emergent, and other ship work with minimal impact to
    ongoing projects across the public and private nuclear shipyard
    industrial base. Illustrative of the One Shipyard Concept in action was
    the post-sea trial work for USS Virginia. When a dry dock was not
    available at the Groton, Connecticut facilities of General Dynamics,
    the Norfolk Naval Shipyard provided a dry dock for USS Virginia and
    support facilities for 250 Electric Boat employees.
        Regional Maintenance Centers (RMCs).--RMCs were established to
    consolidate multiple commands with overlapping responsibilities for
    ship maintenance and modernization within the seven major fleet
    concentration areas. Each RMC provides a fleet concentration area
    single point of contact for all ship maintenance and modernization
    issues. This consolidation was undertaken to gain efficiencies to
    support Navy recapitalization requirements. These savings are being
    realized through a long list of efforts: reduction of overhead
    positions, increased production efficiencies gained by the synergistic
    effect of aligning highly skilled former Fleet Technical Support Center
    personnel with production personnel, reduction of waste and
    inefficiencies, and implementation of improved ship maintenance
    business processes being developed under the SHIPMAIN initiative.
        Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE).--NAE is improving the readiness of
    Naval Air Forces by defining and executing changes that will sustain
    near and long term aviation readiness goals, including those relative
    to aircraft readiness, financial management, and human capital. The
    aircraft readiness component of NAE is the Naval Aviation Readiness
    Integrated Improvement Program (NAVRIIP), a comprehensive approach that
    changes the way the Navy provides manpower, equipment and training in
    Naval Aviation commands. NAVRIIP integrates best business practices,
    which includes Theory of Constraints, Lean and Six Sigma, into
    maintenance, supply, and administrative processes. Current results
    include the reduction of turnaround time for production of T700 power
    turbines at AIMD North Island from 23 to 1.5 days. By
    institutionalizing this way of doing business through a single process
    owner who integrates the efforts of all levels of maintenance, NAVRIIP
    will enable significant productivity improvements and cost-wise
    readiness throughout the NAE.
        Marine Corps Equipment.-Due to continuous combat operations in
    support of the GWOT, the Marine Corps ground equipment usage rate is
    eight times greater than normal peacetime usage. The high usage rate in
    harsh environments, coupled with added weight of armor and unavoidable
    delays in scheduled maintenance due to combat, is degrading equipment
    at an accelerated rate. To improve equipment readiness, the Marine
    Corps has created a limited aircraft depot maintenance capability,
    coordinated with the Army to leverage their ground depot maintenance
    capability, and established a pool of ground equipment to expedite the
    replacement of damaged major items. Of note, the Marine Corps is using
    pre-positioned stocks to ensure the sustained readiness of deployed
    ground units.
    Delegation of Authority/Assignment of Responsibilities
        My goal is to allow all organizations within the DON the latitude
    to lead their activities without intrusion from above. As we delegate
    responsibility and authority, we will unshackle organizations from
    undue administrative processes. By streamlining our organization, we
    are empowering activities to publish details regarding requirements and
    procedures at their level. The ultimate objective is to provide an
    environment for our people to innovate and excel in whatever job
    responsibility they have.
    Environmental
        For the last three years, Congress has addressed critical Navy
    needs regarding encroachment and future training challenges. Readiness-
    specific changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered
    Species Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act have helped the Navy meet
    training and operational challenges. The Navy and Marine Corps has and
    will continue to demonstrate leadership in both its military readiness
    role and as an environmental steward of the oceans we sail and the
    lands we train upon. We are pursuing opportunities for acquiring land
    buffers adjacent to our training lands. We are committed to fully
    implementing the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans prepared
    under the Sikes Act to address endangered species concerns in lieu of
    designating critical habitats. We will continue operational actions to
    minimize harm to marine mammals, as we continue investments in research
    into marine mammal biology and behaviors. The Marine Mammal Protection
    Act is due for reauthorization in this legislative cycle. To continue
    to meet future challenges for military readiness, during the
    reauthorization debate, Congressional support is necessary to preserve
    the proper balance between environmental protection and military
    readiness previously authorized by Congress.
    Information Technology
        Implementing Navy and Marine Corps Internet (NMCI) has enabled the
    DON to increase the security posture of our networks and has allowed
    unprecedented visibility into Information Technology (IT) costs and
    capabilities. The budget supports total NMCI-specific costs for fiscal
    year 2006 of $1.6 billion and implementation of approximately 346,000
    seats. To date, we have ordered 338,000 of the expected 380,000 seats
    and cutover approximately 237,000 seats. We have reduced the number of
    legacy applications in the Navy's inventory from 67,000 to around
    8,000--an 88 percent reduction. This reduction of applications will
    continue as we proceed with complete migration to NMCI throughout the
    Department. Additionally, we anticipate other opportunities for
    progress in areas such as enterprise voice, wireless connectivity,
    broadband remote access service for laptop computers, anti-SPAM
    services for all e-mail accounts, and revised focus on many customer
    satisfaction issues.
        The DON leads a robust Information Assurance (IA) program to
    preserve the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authorization
    and non-repudiation of information on DON IT systems. The DON IA
    program provides the warfighter and warfighter support current IA
    guidance to reduce risk and vulnerabilities and enhance the security
    posture of the DON network/systems.
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
        The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act authorized another
    round of BRAC in 2005. We will scrupulously follow the process laid out
    in the law. We will treat each base equally and fairly, whether
    considered for closure or realignment in the past or not. In no event
    will we make recommendations concerning any closures or realignment of
    our bases until all the data has been collected, certified and
    carefully analyzed within the overall BRAC 2005 statutory framework.
    The goal of BRAC is to reconfigure our current infrastructure to
    maximize our warfighting capability. By eliminating excess
    infrastructure, we optimize readiness and realize significant savings.
    Resources freed up by this process will be used to re-capitalize our
    ships, aircraft, equipment and installations for the future.
        Prior Rounds of BRAC.--The DON completed the closure and
    realignment of activities from the 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 rounds of
    BRAC. All that remains is to complete the environmental cleanup and
    property disposal on all or portions of 17 of the original 91 bases. We
    made significant successes on both fronts. We are using property sales
    as a means to expedite the disposal process as well as recover the
    value of the property for taxpayers. For example, we sold 235 acres in
    2003 at the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California for a
    net $204 million. We sold 22 acres at the former Naval Air Facility Key
    West, Florida in January 2004 for $15 million. The public sale of the
    former San Pedro housing site in Los Angeles and the sale of the former
    Marine Corps Air Station El Toro are now underway.
        We are accelerating cleanup at remaining prior BRAC locations. Of
    the original 161,000 acres planned for disposal from all four prior
    BRAC rounds, we expect to have less than five percent (or about 8,000
    acres) still to dispose by the end of this fiscal year. Additionally,
    in 2006 we expect to dispose of property at the former Naval Station
    Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, as directed in the Fiscal Year 2004
    Defense Appropriations Act.

                           CHANGING THE WAY WE FIGHT

        The hallmark of the Navy and Marine Corps Team has been the ability
    to change, adapt, and transform to meet new threats to America. The
    Navy and Marine Corps Team has embraced a culture of transformation
    that will enable us to develop new weapons systems, realign
    infrastructure, establish new concepts of operations, and streamline
    our business practices. The realization of this transformation process
    will ensure that we continue to contribute to joint warfighting in the
    future and will ensure our place as the preeminent global naval power.
    We appreciate the support of Congress in enabling this transformation.
    Joint Concepts and Operations
        TACAIR Integration.--The CNO and the CMC approved a plan in 2002 to
    integrate the Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation (TACAIR) mission
    using fewer units of more capable aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps
    TACAIR integration optimizes core combat capability to meet national
    security requirements with fiscal efficiency. With the implementation
    of the FRP, the Navy and Marine Corps continue to work together to
    fully integrate Marine Corps squadrons into carrier air wings and Navy
    squadrons into the Marine Corps' Unit Deployment Plan (UDP). Highlights
    of the plan include:
      --The TACAIR integration plan reduces the services' tactical aviation
            force structure by disestablishing five squadrons and reducing
            the total number of aircraft we plan to buy to 1,296.
      --On September 12, 2004, Navy Hornet Strike Fighter Squadron 97 (VFA
            97), the Warhawks, deployed to Marine Corps Air Station
            Iwakuni, Japan, as the first Navy squadron to deploy in support
            of the UDP. The Navy squadron will spend six months supporting
            Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 12 before returning to Naval Air
            Station Lemoore, California.
        Sea Basing.--Central to Naval Power 21 success is the full
    maturation of the Joint Sea Basing concept. When realized, Sea Basing
    will provide a national capability for projecting and sustaining naval
    power and joint forces from a base at sea, without the need to
    establish an intermediate land base. Sea Basing will strengthen force
    protection, free airlift and sealift assets to support missions ashore,
    and provide a foundation for projecting offensive and defensive fires.
    As the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction grows and the
    access to overseas bases declines, it is militarily and politically
    vital to reduce the vulnerability of our forces through the use of
    secure, mobile, and networked sea bases.
        This year the Sea Basing Joint Integrating Concept (JIC) is in
    development and being worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
    Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Sea Basing will provide
    the Joint Task Force Commander with the capability to dissuade a
    potential adversary and, if necessary, project joint combat power
    within reduced timelines. This will enable persistent combat operations
    wherever and whenever required with operational independence of host
    nation or coalition nation support.
        Missile Defense.--A viable regional and terminal sea based
    ballistic missile defense system is important to ensure the safety of
    United States forces and the flow through foreign ports and airfields
    when required. Sea based missile defense can also allow us to assist
    allies and friends while at the same time deterring coercion and
    threats. During the past year, USS Curtis Wilbur became the first ship
    capable of conducting Long-Range Surveillance and Tracking (LRST) in
    support of homeland missile defense. In addition, during fiscal year
    2005 the Standard Missile (SM-3) ballistic missile defense mission
    capability will be available for deployment onboard USS Lake Erie and
    USS Port Royal. Programming is in place to modify fifteen DDGs and
    three CGs to add the LRST and SM-3 mission capability.
        Sea Swap.--Sea Swap is a promising initiative designed to increase
    forward naval presence by keeping a ship continuously deployed in a
    given theatre of operation, while replacing entire crews at six-month
    intervals. The primary objective of Sea Swap is to effectively and
    efficiently increase forward Naval presence without increasing
    operating costs. By leaving the ship in theatre and moving only the
    crews, the Navy saves on ship transit time and fuel costs, while at the
    same time increasing the ships on station time. Sea Swap has the
    potential to reduce force structure requirements in the long term.
    Consequently, the Navy is studying Sea Swap to determine the future
    impact on force structure.
    Force Structure/Capability
        Our Department is embarked on a transformation that requires us to
    continuously balance force structure and capability. The transformation
    is driven by technology that is significantly increasing capabilities
    of naval systems. New operating concepts such as the Fleet Response
    Plan have already altered the employment and make-up of naval forces.
    Today's 290 ship Navy is much more capable than the more than double
    the size Navy of the late 1980s. Numbers still matter, but only when
    carefully balanced with capabilities.
        This year's budget reflects the increasing capabilities and
    evolving operational concepts of our forces. After careful and lengthy
    analysis, we decided to retire an aircraft carrier. Our assessment is
    that we have developed the operational flexibility and increased
    capability, to retire an older carrier without risk to national
    security. The cost avoidance of this action will allow additional
    investment in transformational programs that further increase our
    capabilities.
        Our budget request increases investment accounts (Research,
    Development Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and Military
    Construction (MILCON)) from approximately $49 billion in fiscal year
    2005 to about $52 billion in fiscal year 2006. Due to a confluence of
    numerous programs, a peak year for Navy RDT&E funding for the JSF,
    increased aircraft procurement, and our investments in transformational
    ships, we are limiting new construction to four ships in fiscal year
    2006. In fiscal year 2006, we are also investing over $1 billion in
    RDT&E and over $700 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
    funding toward the first DD(X) as well as over $1 billion in a CVN
    Refueling Complex Overhaul.
        New Construction Ships and Submarines.--Fiscal year 2006 will be a
    transformational year as the Department continues the shift to next
    generation warships. New construction is limited to four ships as we
    focus on shifting to next generation surface combatants and sea basing
    capabilities. The total number of new ships procured over the FYDP is
    49, averaging 8.2 ships per year, including the Virginia Class SSN, San
    Antonio Class LPD, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), T-AKE, CVN-21, DD(X),
    LHA(R), CG(X), Maritime Preposition Force (Future) (MPF(F)), and the T-
    AOE(X). For fiscal year 2006, our shipbuilding programs are limited by
    their place in the development and initial construction phase.
        In 2004, the Department delivered and commissioned the lead ship of
    our newest class of submarines, the USS Virginia, initiating a new era
    of undersea capabilities that are aligned to the littoral regions. The
    lessons learned in constructing and testing the first submarine in more
    than six years are being applied to the follow-on ships. The USS Jimmy
    Carter was delivered to the Navy at the end of 2004 and will be
    commissioned in early 2005. The Navy also commissioned five DDGs in
    2004 and laid the keels for the eighth ship of the LHD Class, the first
    Lewis and Clark Auxiliary Dry Cargo Ammunition Ship (T-AKE), and the
    third and fourth Virginia Class Submarines. In Calendar Year 2004, the
    Navy completed three Engineered Refueling Overhauls of SSN 688 Class
    Submarines.
        Virginia Class SSN. The fiscal year 2006 Budget continues the
    strong support for the Virginia submarine program and provides the
    funding for the eighth submarine of the Class. In addition, funds for
    economic order quantity and advanced procurement for the ninth and
    tenth submarines are requested. These ships will continue to be built
    using the teaming approach adopted by Congress in 1998, which maintains
    two nuclear capable submarine shipbuilders. The Navy is procuring one
    submarine per year through the FYDP.
        San Antonio Class LPD. The LPD-17 is an amphibious transport dock
    ship optimized for operational flexibility and designed to meet Marine
    Air-Ground Task Force lift requirements. In 2005, the first LPD-17, San
    Antonio, will be delivered. The fiscal year 2006 Budget provides full
    funding for LPD-24, the eighth ship of the LPD-17 class.
        Littoral Combat Ship. A critical component of Sea Shield is the
    LCS, which is envisioned to be fast, agile, stealthy, relatively small
    and affordable. Primary missions for the ship will include small boat
    prosecution, mine warfare, shallow water anti-submarine warfare,
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. It will operate in
    environments where it is impractical to employ larger ships. LCS final
    system design contracts were competitively awarded to two teams in
    fiscal year 2004. The detail design and construction of the first LCS
    flight ship is underway. Detail design for the second ship is ongoing
    with construction starting in fiscal year 2006. Procurement of the
    three mission packages is also planned in fiscal year 2006.
        Lewis and Clark Class T-AKE. The fiscal year 2006 Budget request
    includes funding for the ninth ship of the class. The first eight ships
    have been authorized and appropriated and are under contract for
    construction. Lead ship construction commenced in September 2003, with
    a projected delivery date of January 2006. Projected delivery date for
    the first follow on ship is September 2006 with remaining ship
    deliveries at three to six month intervals.
        CVN-21. CVN-21 will be the centerpiece of tomorrow's CSGs and
    contribute to every capability pillar envisioned in Sea Power 21. CVN-
    21 will provide the United States the capability to quickly project
    combat power anywhere in the world, independent of land based support.
    CVN-21 will increase sortie generation rate and increase survivability
    to better handle future threats. The new design nuclear propulsion
    plant and improved electric plant together provide three times the
    electrical generation capacity of a Nimitz Class carrier. This capacity
    allows the introduction of new systems such as Electromagnetic Aircraft
    Launching System, Advanced Arresting Gear, and a new integrated warfare
    system that will leverage advances in open systems architecture to be
    affordably upgraded. The fiscal year 2006 Budget request includes
    advance procurement funding for the continued development of CVN-21.
    The construction contract is scheduled for award in fiscal year 2008,
    with ship delivery in 2015.
        DD(X). DD(X) will be a multi-mission surface combatant designed to
    provide precision strike, volume fires, and littoral area air defense.
    It will provide credible forward presence while operating independently
    or as an integral part of naval, joint, or combined expeditionary
    forces. Its offensive fires capability will be a critical element of
    our future Sea Strike and Sea Shield capabilities. The fiscal year 2006
    Budget request includes RDT&E funds for continued technology
    development and advance procurement for lead ship detail design and
    construction. The Navy is three years into the competitively awarded
    DD(X) design and technology development effort. Planned technologies
    such as an integrated power system and total ship computing environment
    in an open architecture, will provide more affordable future ship
    classes in terms of both construction and operation. DD(X) will be the
    first forward fit open architecture combat system. This investment will
    pay dividends to other surface ship procurements, including CVN-21 and
    the LHA Replacement Ship.
        LHA Replacement Ship (LHA(R)). The fiscal year 2006 Budget request
    includes advance procurement funding for the LHA(R). The Navy's
    objective for the LHA(R) program is to replace the capability of the
    LHA-1 Class to provide required amphibious lift and presence
    capability. The fiscal year 2007 Flight Zero ship features improved
    aviation capabilities. With the addition of advance procurement in
    fiscal year 2006, construction of the LHA(R) has been accelerated to
    start in fiscal year 2007.
        Maritime Preposition Force (Future) (MPF(F)). Most prominent in
    highlighting the value and power of the nation's naval expeditionary
    capability was the Marine Corps' participation in OIF. Success in this
    operation was due to our naval dominance, our expeditionary nature, and
    our flexibility and adaptability to defeat the challenges posed by
    enemy threats. Among other naval assets, eleven strategically located
    Maritime Pre-positioning Ships (MPS) were unloaded in 16 days to
    provide the equipment and sustainment required for two Marine
    Expeditionary Brigades. Exploiting the operational speed, reach, and
    inherent flexibility of seapower, the Navy and Marine Corps Team
    achieved a rapid buildup of sustained warfighting power that was combat
    ready to support United States Central Command. The current MPS ships
    are essentially forward-located floating warehouses with limited sea-
    based logistics support capabilities. They can only off-load pier-side,
    or in-stream close to shore under favorable weather and sea conditions,
    or in a protected harbor. They have a very limited ability to
    facilitate rapid force closure due to limited ship transit speeds and
    extended periods for off-load, assembly and distribution. Equipment
    must be off-loaded from the existing ships, made ready for combat, and
    married up with the troops ashore prior to beginning combat operations.
    The MPF(F) will eliminate these limitations and provide for a greatly
    expanded joint military capability including decking for strike
    aircraft.
        T-AOE(X). The next generation fast combat support ship is being
    studied and may eventually replace the Sacramento Class of fleet
    auxiliaries. The T-AOE(X) is envisioned to provide rapid replenishment
    at sea of petroleum, munitions, provisions, and fleet freight.
    Acquisition is currently scheduled to start in fiscal year 2009.
                Ship/Submarine Conversions and Modernizations
        SSGN. The fiscal year 2006 Budget provides the funding to convert
    the last of four SSBNs to SSGNs. When complete, the SSGN will be a
    covert conventional strike platform capable of carrying up to 154
    Tomahawk missiles and supporting deployed special operating forces.
        Cruiser (CG) Modernization. The CG Modernization program was
    restructured in fiscal year 2006 in accordance with Congressional
    direction. Under the restructured plan, the older Baseline 2 and 3
    ships will be modernized first. Funding begins in fiscal year 2006 for
    long lead-time procurements for a fiscal year 2008 Baseline 2
    modernization availability. This modernization will reduce combat
    system and computer maintenance costs, replace obsolete combat systems,
    and extend service life. It will also incorporate manpower reduction
    improvements and quality of service enhancements from the smart-ship
    program.
        CVN-70. The fiscal year 2006 budget provides funds for the first
    increment of the CVN-70 Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH). The planned
    schedule will have the CVN-70 available to the Fleet in late 2009,
    after both RCOH and subsequent work-ups.
        SSBN Extended Refueling Overhaul. The refueling and overhaul of the
    USS Alabama is budgeted in fiscal year 2006. This is the second SSBN
    ERO that will sustain our strategic forces well into the future.
        Mine Warfare.--The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes funding to
    support the Navy's goal of an organic mine countermeasures capability
    while upgrading the dedicated mine countermeasure force. The budget
    continues the development and integration of five organic systems for
    the MH-60S platform to be deployed from the LCS: the AQS-20A
    Minehunting System, the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System, the
    Airborne Mine Neutralization System, the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance
    System, and the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep System.
    The fiscal year 2006 Budget request also supports the development and
    procurement of the Remote Minehunting System integrated into DDG-51
    hulls 91-96 as well as for deployment from the LCS. In fiscal year
    2006, we will continue with our Surface Mine Countermeasures (MCM) mid-
    life upgrade plan. We have initiated a product improvement program for
    the engines of the MCM-1 Avenger Class mine countermeasure ships to
    enhance their reliability and availability. We are upgrading our
    minesweeping capability with new acoustic generators and magnetic sweep
    cables, and have requested resources to replace our maintenance-
    intensive mine neutralization system (AN/SLQ-48) with an expendable
    mine neutralization system. For the Marine Corps, the budget continues
    to support the Assault Breaching System, that, when fielded, will
    counter the mine and obstacle threat in the beach and surf zones.
        Aircraft.--The Department's fiscal year 2006 Budget request is
    structured to maintain the continued aviation superiority of the Navy
    and Marine Corps. The Naval aircraft procurement plan emphasizes
    replacing costly stand-alone legacy platforms with more efficient and
    capable integrated systems. Including the aircraft funded with RDT&E,
    the number of aircraft requested increases from 115 in fiscal year 2005
    to 138 in fiscal year 2006. This includes the first four EA-18G
    aircraft, five VXX helicopters and three Firescout unmanned aerial
    vehicles (UAV). The budget continues to maximize the return on
    procurement dollars, primarily through the use of multi-year
    procurement (MYP) for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, the E-2C, and the MH-
    60S programs.
        F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Our recapitalization plan includes
    the JSF, a stealthy, multi-role fighter aircraft designed jointly to be
    an enabler for Sea Strike and Sea Shield. The fiscal year 2006 Budget
    contains funding for the continuation of System Development and
    Demonstration (SDD) on the JSF. The JSF will enhance the DON's
    precision strike capability with unprecedented stealth, range, sensor
    fusion, radar performance, combat identification and electronic attack
    capabilities. Carrier based JSF will complement the F/A-18E/F and EA-
    18G in providing long range strike capability and much improved
    persistence over the battlefield. The Short Take Off/Vertical Landing
    (STOVL) JSF combines the multi-role versatility of the F/A-18 and the
    basing flexibility of the AV-8B. The commonality designed into the JSF
    program will reduce acquisition and operating costs and allow enhanced
    interoperability with our Allies and sister Services. The JSF continues
    working to translate concept designs to three producible variants.
    Manufacture and assembly of the first flight test Conventional Take Off
    and Landing (CTOL) aircraft is underway, with assembly times much less
    than planned. Detailed design work continues for the CTOL and STOVL
    variants. The first flight is scheduled for 2006. The JSF program has
    aggressively addressed weight and airframe design issues identified
    last year. All three variants are projected to meet key performance
    parameter requirements. The JSF program is completing a re-plan effort
    that began approximately a year ago. The fiscal year 2006 Budget
    reflects the revised SDD and production schedule.
        F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. The F/A-18E/F continues to be the centerpiece
    of Navy combat aviation and entered into a five year multi-year
    procurement contracting starting in 2004. The F/A-18E/F program has
    also been funded to introduce a transformational radar, helmet-mounted
    sight, advanced targeting pod, and a fully integrated weapons system.
    The budget also includes funding for the first EA-18G, which is the
    follow-on aircraft to the EA-6B electronic attack aircraft.
        MH-60R/MH-60S. The fiscal year 2006 Budget requests funding for the
    procurement of 12 aircraft and continued RDT&E for the replacement and
    upgrade of Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System MK III SH-60B and
    carrier-based SH-60F helicopters to the new configuration designated as
    MH-60R. In addition, the budget requests funding for RDT&E and the
    procurement of 26 MH-60S, which is the Navy's primary combat support
    helicopter designed to support Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups.
        V-22. The V-22 program is designed to meet the expeditionary/
    vertical assault needs of the Marine Corps, the strike rescue needs of
    the Navy, and to supplement the special mission aircraft for U.S.
    Special Operations Command. The fiscal year 2006 Budget request
    includes funding for 11 V-22s (9 MV-22s and 2 CV-22s) and funding for
    continued aircraft testing and evaluation. Progress continues towards
    delivering a high-quality aircraft that improves capability and
    interoperability of the aircraft, reduces production costs, and
    maximizes production efficiency. Since the resumption of V-22 flight-
    testing, in May 2002, the V-22 is satisfying the threshold levels for
    all its key performance parameters. V-22 test pilots have recorded more
    than 4,500 flight hours since that time. The V-22 will enter
    Operational Evaluation in March 2005, leading to a full rate production
    decision expected in late Calendar Year 2005.
        AH-1Z/UH-1Y. The current fleet of AH-1W attack helicopters and UH-
    1N utility helicopters continues to perform superbly in the GWOT. High
    demand for their capabilities in a harsh environment is highlighting
    known deficiencies of these aging helicopters--particularly with regard
    to crew and passenger survivability, payload lift, power, endurance,
    range, airspeed, maneuverability, and supportability. The DON
    determined that the H-1 Upgrade Program is the most cost-effective
    alternative for the Marine Corps' attack and utility helicopter
    requirements. The H-1 Upgrade Program is a key modernization effort
    designed to resolve existing safety deficiencies, enhance operational
    effectiveness of both the AH-1W and the UH-1N, and extend the service
    life of both aircraft. In October 2003, the program entered initial
    low-rate production. A follow-on low-rate production is scheduled to
    start in February 2005, and operational and evaluation testing is
    planned to begin in July 2005. Due to aircraft attrition in combat
    operations, we plan to pursue funding in the future for a ``build-new''
    strategy for additional AH-1Z and UH-1Y aircraft, in order to prevent
    inventory shortfalls that would be unacceptable in light of current and
    expected operational commitments.
        Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA). In June 2004 the Navy
    selected Boeing's 737 for the MMA. The MMA will be a long-range Anti-
    Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW), and ISR aircraft
    capable of broad area maritime and littoral operations. The MMA is the
    replacement for P-3C Orion and will begin to enter the fleet in 2013.
        CH-53X. The Marine Corps' CH-53E continues to demonstrate its value
    as an expeditionary heavy-lift platform, with significant assault
    support contributions in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and Iraq.
    Vertical heavy lift will be critical to successful 21st century
    operations in anti-access, area-denial environments, enabling the force
    application and focused logistics envisioned within the joint operating
    concepts. The CH-53X series aircraft will address our emerging heavy-
    lift requirements. The fiscal year 2006 Budget requests RDT&E funds to
    begin the System Development and Demonstration phase of the CH-53X
    program.
        Advanced Hawkeye (AHE). The AHE program will modernize the E-2
    weapons system by replacing the current radar and other system
    components to maintain open ocean capability while adding a robust
    overland capability against current and future cruise missile type
    targets. The budget requests funds to procure two E-2Cs as the third
    year of a four-year multi-year procurement. This effort will keep the
    production line viable while the AHE continues spiral development
    toward an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2011.
        Presidential Replacement Helicopter (VXX). The fiscal year 2006
    Budget requests RDT&E funding for VXX systems development efforts and
    the procurement of five pilot production aircraft. The goal of this
    accelerated program is to introduce a new Presidential helicopter by
    October 2009. The VXX program will utilize an evolutionary acquisition
    approach through a two-part incremental development to deliver a safe,
    survivable and capable vertical lift aircraft while providing
    uninterrupted communications with all required agencies.
        Marine Corps Equipment.--The fiscal year 2006 Budget supports the
    development and fielding of equipment used by Marine Corps ground
    forces. The Marine Corps' number one ground acquisition priority
    continues to be the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The EFV will
    join the MV-22 and the LCAC as an integral component of the amphibious
    triad required for executing expeditionary maneuver warfare. Low-rate
    initial production procurement begins in fiscal year 2007 and will
    start delivery in fiscal year 2008. The Department intends to procure
    15 vehicles in fiscal year 2007 with IOC planned for fiscal year 2010.
        Also critical to the Marine Corps transformation efforts is the
    Lightweight 155 Howitzer (M 777). The M 777 is a joint USMC/Army 155 mm
    towed artillery system that will provide significant improvements over
    the current M198 system. The M 777 is currently in its third year of
    low-rate initial production for the Marine Corps.
        Marine Corps modernization efforts within the fiscal year 2006
    Budget include the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
    (HMMWVA2) program and the Light Armored Vehicle Product Improvement
    Program (LAV PIP).
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).--The fiscal year 2006 Budget
    continues to demonstrate the DON's commitment to develop, acquire, and
    field transformational UAV technologies for ISR and tactical missions.
    The Navy's UAV programs are focused on two areas, the Vertical Takeoff
    and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV), designated the Fire Scout, and the
    Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS).
        The Fire Scout (VTUAV) is capable of operating from all air-capable
    ships. It carries modular mission payloads and operates using the
    Tactical Control System (TCS) and Tactical Common Data Link. The Fire
    Scout will provide day/night real time ISR and targeting as well as
    communication-relay and battlefield management capabilities for ASW,
    MIW and ASUW on LCS. The BAMS UAV program will meet the Navy
    requirement for a persistent ISR capability as well as address the
    growing ISR gap and the shortfall in maritime surveillance capability.
    The BAMS UAV System is intended to be a Navy fleet asset for tactical
    users such as Battle Group Commanders and the Joint Forces Maritime
    Component Commander (JFMCC).
        The Marine Corps continues to examine options for the sustainment
    and eventual replacement of its aging Pioneer fleet. Requirements for
    Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) are being developed in
    consonance with Ship to Objective Maneuver concepts from Expeditionary
    Maneuver Warfare and with lessons learned from recent operational
    experience. The Marine Corps will procure a small number of United
    States Coast Guard Eagle Eye tilt rotor UAVs as an interim step to
    replace the Pioneer.
        Finally, the Air Force and Navy Joint Unmanned Combat Air System
    (JUCAS) will provide persistent, carrier-based penetrating surveillance
    in high threat areas that will leverage existing investment in long-
    range weapons to ensure access against future threat air defense
    systems to allow strike options with low risk of friendly loss/capture.
    This joint program is in the science and technology development and
    demonstration phase.
        Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV).--The fiscal year 2006 Budget
    request supports advanced technology development for a mine influence
    system integrated into an unmanned 11-meter craft for deployment from
    LCS.
        Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV).--We continue to pursue man-
    transportable robotic systems to perform explosive ordnance disposal
    tasks, to include technology development of bottom crawling vehicles
    for mine reconnaissance and neutralization.
        Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUV).--The fiscal year 2006 Budget
    continues the development of a family of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles as
    described in the UUV Master Plan issued in 2004. The Modular 21-inch
    UUV program will provide a robust mine counter measures capability that
    can be deployed covertly. Its design will support the ability to
    reconfigure for other missions due to its open architecture design. A
    family of smaller diameter (7.5-inch), low-cost, man-deployable UUVs
    will provide the capability for mine clearance in shallower areas as
    was demonstrated during OIF, as well as support force protection
    missions. In fiscal year 2006, we are initiating the development of a
    12.75-inch UUV for deployment from LCS in support of mine
    countermeasures missions and environmental data gathering. A larger
    diameter UUV will provide a long endurance capability and expand the
    types of missions that can be conducted.
        Munitions Programs.--During OEF and OIF, the Department expended
    less precision ordnance than projected. As a result, the purchases for
    fiscal year 2006 have been decreased for Joint Direct Attack Munitions
    (JDAMs) and Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs). This decrease in procurement
    provides no increased risk to the DON but merely reflects lower
    ordnance utilization rates. Partnerships with the Army and the Air
    Force in several of our munitions programs continue to help us optimize
    both our inventories and our research and development investments
        The Navy provided an Early Operational Capability (EOC) and
    accelerated deliveries for 500-pound JDAM variant (GBU-38) for Navy F/
    A-18E/F platforms. This variant was deployed immediately after approval
    for production was granted as it met an urgent warfighter need to
    deploy precision munitions with limited collateral effects in congested
    urban environments in support of OIF. The 500-pound JDAM filled the
    mission need so well that over one-third of the initial inventory was
    expended within one month of weapons arriving in theater. This resulted
    in a Navy and Marine Corps request for accelerated production and
    delivery. The fiscal year 2006 Budget funds JDAM to meet all known
    warfighter demands and we will closely monitor expenditures to make any
    adjustments, as needed.
        We also approved a new variant of the JSOW family of weapons for
    Full Rate Production in December 2004. Similar to the new 500-pound
    JDAM program, this capability is in demand by the warfighter to provide
    new options for precision attack against point targets vulnerable to
    blast fragmentation effects and hardened targets.
        Technology Insertion.--We continue to sustain a robust RDT&E effort
    as we transform the Navy and Marine Corps to the next generation of
    combat systems. This budget reflects our commitment to future
    transformational capabilities maintained in joint forward sea basing
    initiatives and technology insertion for major platforms including
    DD(X), LCS, SSN, VXX and MMA, and supports a new design for future
    undersea superiority system. While the long term pace of
    transformational programs has slowed in this budget, desired future
    capabilities have been preserved across the warfighting spectrum.
    Continued technology improvements will ensure Naval forces' ability to
    project offensive power, defend the homeland, and sustain operational
    independence around the world.
        Science and Technology (S&T). The Navy pursues an integrated and
    comprehensive science and technology program, from basic research
    through manufacturing technology, focused on enabling the Naval
    warfighter as outlined in the Department of the Navy's vision Naval
    Power 21. The President's Budget request for science and technology
    efforts to support the Navy and Marine Corps Team is $1.8 billion.
    Program officers manage specific investment portfolios and are
    responsible for integrating basic research with applied science and
    technology in their areas, while promoting the effective and
    expeditious transition of discovery and invention into real-world
    applications. The success of the Navy S&T program is not measured
    simply by the basic science it supports, but also by the successful
    transition of that science to support our Sailors and Marines in the
    field.
        FORCEnet. The Navy and Marine Corps FORCEnet is an initiative to
    achieve Net Centric Warfare and joint transformation by providing
    robust information sharing and collaboration capabilities across the
    Naval enterprise and with other services, agencies, the joint
    community, and coalition partners. We are beginning to implement
    FORCEnet capabilities in our acquisition programs, including programs
    that procure either warfighting or support systems afloat and ashore,
    to provide this critical capability as soon as possible across the
    Department. We expect FORCEnet-supported operations to have a higher
    tempo and greater effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability. In short,
    we expect better results faster, with less waste and greater
    responsiveness to changing circumstances. Some distributed network
    concepts and systems that provide the building blocks for FORCEnet
    include: Open Architecture, Cooperative Engagement Capability, Mobile
    User Objective System, and Joint Tactical Radio System.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Navy and Marine Corps Team is providing great value to our
    Nation. Today, your Navy and Marine Corps Team is forward deployed,
    answering the call in protecting America's strategic interests. ``Being
    there'' around the world, around the clock, with combat ready forces--
    your Navy and Marine Corps Team will continue to be ready to win the
    fight across a wide range of contingencies.
        The fiscal year 2006 Budget request is both about prevailing in
    today's environment and bridging for a successful future. While we are
    balancing between today and tomorrow's force, we are clear in purpose
    and focused on success in the future. We are confident in our
    capabilities and where we are headed together with the joint force. In
    preparing for the future, we will never overlook the present. With this
    budget, we have set a course to win our Nation's wars and transform to
    meet future challenges.
        In supporting the challenges outlined in the fiscal year 2006
    Budget request, Congress will continue to provide the DON the right
    capability at the right time to meet our Nation's needs.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral Clark, we welcome you for your
    last statement. But I've got to start off by telling you about
    the advice my first father-in-law gave me as he reached 95. He
    said, ``Just keep in mind that only in the English language
    does the word `retire' mean other than go to bed.''
        We expect to see you again and again. Admiral, welcome
    before the Committee.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERN CLARK

        Admiral Clark. Thank you very much, Chairman Stevens,
    Senator Inouye, Chairman Cochran, and Senator Mikulski.
        It is a real privilege to be here; actually, a great honor
    for me to be here representing the sons and daughters of
    America who wear sailor uniforms in service to this Nation, and
    especially to be here with this team that's sitting to my left,
    Secretary England and General Hagee. I am privileged to work
    with people like this, committed to our Nation, and making the
    Navy/Marine Corps team stronger.
        And, as you have said, this is a meaningful event for me,
    because it's the last time I'm going to be here, at least in an
    open session, talking about this Navy that I love.
        This posture statement that I've submitted to you, the
    written one, is the longest one I've ever given to you. I'll
    take about 4 or 5 minutes here and just talk about what's in
    here.
        This budget before you ensures that you will continue to
    see credible combat naval forces deployed overseas in the
    immediate years ahead, just as they are doing this morning,
    providing warfighting and/or deterrent forces in the far
    corners of the Earth. The way I like to say it is, ``options
    for the President with the freedom to represent our Nation in
    the maneuver space that's guaranteed by international law,
    operating in our maritime domain with a capability which comes
    to you only from the investment that this Nation has made in
    its Navy.''
        This is a capability that will become more and more
    important with a future that I believe will focus on
    generation-four warfare in a global war on terror that will
    last for many years to come.
        In this budget proposal, which I support, we've carefully
    allocated the resources provided by this Nation, and propose
    increases in every major segment of the Navy's budget.
        In particular, the military personnel account will increase
    by $1.1 billion in a package that enhances the overall benefits
    of military service, from pay, to housing, to special
    allowances, and directly supports our efforts to recruit and
    retain a talented and dedicated fighting force.
        Our operations and maintenance account increases to ensure
    the continued readiness of the Navy to fight and win in the
    long war against terror. If we've learned anything since 9/11,
    it is that our forces must be ready. And your Navy is more
    ready today than at any time since any of you or I have been
    engaged in this national security business.
        Let's talk about procurement. It increases by almost $2
    billion, seeking to achieve future warfighting wholeness and
    funding important new ship and aircraft programs.
        Continuing the emphasis on transformation, the aircraft
    procurement plan in this budget has $6.6 billion in R&D for our
    aviation programs--Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), Joint
    Strike Fighter, V-22, Aerial Common Sensor (ACS), and
    Presidential Helicopter Replacement (VXX). And the return on
    these programs is high. For instance, today our carrier strike
    groups can strike four times the number of targets per day than
    they could in Desert Storm. And because of our investment
    strategy, what's in the budget today, this naval aviation
    strike capability is expected to double again by the end of
    2010.
        The fiscal year 2006 to 2011 program includes $89.6 billion
    and a procurement plan of 1,263 aircraft across the Future
    Years Defense Plan (FYDP). The 2006 budget alone includes $10.5
    billion to procure 128 aircraft, including helicopters,
    representing an additional $1.7 billion above what was
    appropriated in 2005.
        And we made a significant commitment to increase research
    and development, as the Secretary said. Now, let me just point
    out one fact here. Our research and development budget is now,
    in this budget, double what it was when I came into office 5
    years ago. In 2006, it goes up by $1.2 billion, of which 66
    percent is going to design the ships and the submarines and
    aircraft that will support our transformational goals, like
    seabasing, and maximize our operational availability with
    speed, access, and persistence.
        So, overall, this budget is well balanced. It increases the
    quality of naval service, ensures combat and operational
    readiness for the fighting force today, and invests in future
    capabilities.
        Having said that, I must share with you a number of
    challenges that do lie before us and the Nation.
        First, the majority of our naval force structure was built
    to fight two major theater wars, yet the strategic landscape is
    vastly different today than when I came to this job and
    demands, in my view, a different set of capabilities to
    accomplish increasingly discreet missions. I'm speaking
    specifically about other missions, such as peacekeeping,
    stability operations, and the tasks involved in the global war
    on terror. As a result, I believe that our Navy must be
    reshaped and better balanced to be optimized for the future.
    Building a force set to deal only with major combat operations,
    given all the other tasks that we face in the world today and
    will face in the future is not, in my view, a responsible
    approach.
        The budget is a transformational gearshift, as the
    Secretary said, to properly shape us for the future by fielding
    platforms and sensors and capabilities that are key to winning
    the wars that we may have to fight in the future. We must build
    platforms like the Littoral combat ship, where we've decoupled
    the combat capabilities from the frame--the sea frame itself.
    And the EA-18G, with its advanced weapons and sensors, that
    transforms the battle against IADS, integrated air defense
    systems, from one of suppression to one of lethality. And we
    must also continue development of advanced technology for DD(X)
    and the developing CVN-21 and CG(X), which will take on the
    missile defense threats of the future, along with Joint Strike
    Fighter and maritime pre-positioned force and the replacement
    Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) for our marine friends.
        Let me give you another challenge. While transitional
    threats are the focus of today's efforts, we must keep watch on
    the increased anti-access and sea-denial capabilities that are
    being developed by nations in the Middle East and Asia.
        Third, we must deal with the spiraling cost of our systems.
    Spiraling costs are competing with our ability to transform for
    the future. Slowing the pace and reducing the scale of our
    vital programs, escalating procurement costs in shipbuilding
    and aircraft are eroding my buying power, and we need your help
    to partner with industry to deliver more fighting power at less
    cost to the Nation.
        My written statement addresses the soaring costs of ships
    and aircraft over time, and the impact of this loss of buying
    power. I think the conclusion is obvious. We must address the
    central issue. What size Navy with what kinds of capabilities
    must this Nation have to live in a world where globalization is
    the rule of the day? This addresses, directly, your comment,
    Mr. Chairman, about your concern for the future and the size
    and the number of ships that we will have in the days to come.
    I believe that this is a national security issue that requires
    our collective attention.
        Finally, personnel costs continue to rise, especially
    regarding healthcare. Now, there is no question that we owe
    them, our men and women and their families, a standard of
    living that properly reflects the value of their service to the
    Nation, and we also owe them the tools to do their job. So, we
    must ensure that our force is properly shaped and trained and
    educated to provide the maximum return on investment. And there
    are many initiatives underway. And I would love to talk today
    about how we are winning the battle for people.
        To meet these future challenges, we need congressional
    support to help us implement more flexible ship and aircraft
    procurement funding mechanisms, such as level funding and
    advanced procurement and split funding and multi-year
    procurements, all of these things somehow put together, just as
    we do with other major defense acquisition programs. In my
    view, the status quo is inadequate. If we do not transform our
    acquisition methods, we will not be able to deliver the 21st
    century Navy that this Nation needs.
        We also ask your support for our continued experimentation
    with innovative force-shaping tools for our people to ensure
    our Navy is properly sized and trained to meet the challenges
    of the 21st century.
        And so, in closing, I want you to know that your Navy is
    ready, as ready as I have ever seen it. And I want you to know
    that this readiness did not happen by accident. You gave us the
    resources, and we got here because of the tremendous men and
    women living a lifestyle of service in uniform today.
        Over the past year, they have deterred and disrupted the
    movement of terrorists at sea, supported the United States
    (U.S.) and coalition forces on the ground in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, guarded Iraq's critical oil infrastructure in the
    Persian Gulf, and provided quick and vital support to the
    tsunami relief effort.
        Today, the spotlight is on the Army and the United States
    Marine Corps, and that's exactly as it should be, as they fight
    in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are, to some people's surprise,
    7,000 sailors ashore in Iraq with them, and that number is
    growing. And there are 13,000 sailors at sea in General
    Abizaid's theater. And when Iraq is over and everybody else
    comes home, your Navy will still be out there every day, just
    like it is today, with our number one joint partner, the United
    States Marine Corps, representing our Nation in ways that no
    other service can on the high seas in our maneuver space, with
    the freedom to go wherever we need to go.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I want you all to know that I could not be more proud of
    the operational accomplishments of our Navy and the men and
    women who make it possible. It's been a thrill of a lifetime to
    have this opportunity. And I thank you for the chance to
    represent them here today, and I look forward to the
    opportunity to discuss our Navy in the future.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Admiral Vern Clark

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, this will be my fifth
    opportunity to talk with you about the investments that you've made in
    America's Navy and about our budget request for the coming year. I want
    you to know that it has been an honor for me to come to this ``house of
    the people'' and work with all of you in the service of our great
    nation. Your dedication to the public good has been an inspiration, and
    I am personally grateful for having had the privilege to speak with you
    on so many occasions.
        I also want to express my gratitude on behalf of the men and women
    of your Navy. Your exceptional and continuous support has made possible
    their remarkable achievements of the last five years in manpower,
    readiness levels, and our ability to generate capabilities the joint
    force will need to fight and win in the dangerous decades ahead.
        These marvelous Americans--active and reserve, uniformed and
    civilian--will continue to make this nation proud as they take the
    fight to today's enemy, while steadily transforming our institution to
    meet tomorrow's challenges. It is they who make ours the greatest Navy
    ever to sail the world's oceans; our ability to attract, train, and
    retain them is a testament to the health of our service and an
    indicator of our proper heading as we chart our course into the twenty-
    first century.

                 YOUR NAVY TODAY--FOCUSED ON WINNING THE FIGHT

        We are engaged in a war that I believe will be a generational
    challenge. Your Navy has been at the forefront of this war at sea and
    on land, and Sailors have represented themselves with great
    distinction. In this fight, your Navy is making history as we
    contribute unprecedented reach, precision, persistence, and awareness
    to the joint force. In this time of great consequence for our future,
    our men and women operating in the air, on and under the sea, and on
    the ground are at the leading edge of the Global War on Terrorism.
        Today, there are 85 ships on deployment (29 percent of the Fleet);
    this includes three aircraft carriers, and two big deck amphibious
    ships (LHA/LHD). They are deployed in support of the nation's interests
    in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the
    Western Pacific (see Figure 1). And because of the changes we've made
    in how we maintain our ships and train our crews, still others are
    ready to surge forward on short notice or are continuing operations
    like strategic deterrence; intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance missions; and counter-drug patrols in support of other
    national imperatives.

                                    Figure 1

        There are now approximately 22,000 Sailors deployed to the Central
    Command area of responsibility (AOR) in support of Operations ENDURING
    FREEDOM (OEF) and IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). This includes more than 14,000
    men and women of the HARRY S. TRUMAN Carrier Strike Group (CSG), CARL
    VINSON Carrier Strike Group and BONHOMME RICHARD Expeditionary Strike
    Group (ESG) as well as some 8,000 Navy personnel on the ground
    throughout the theater. Among them are more than 2,500 medical
    personnel in direct support of ground combat missions, and more than
    1,000 Seabees managing construction projects for new Iraqi schools,
    bridges, roads and facilities. They are also teaching construction
    skills as part of the Iraqi Construction Apprentice Program.
        OIF.--In the past year, Navy aircraft have provided the reach,
    precision, persistence, and awareness needed by Soldiers and Marines
    engaged in OIF ground combat operations. Navy sea-based tactical
    aircraft flew more than 3,000 sorties and dropped more than 100,000
    pounds of ordnance in close support missions. Less visible, but no less
    valuable, have been the nearly 5,000 hours of dedicated surveillance
    and reconnaissance flown by both sea-based and shore-based Navy
    aircraft, providing the eyes and ears of our people on the ground in
    Iraq. At sea, Naval Coastal Warfare forces protect Iraq's oil terminals
    in the Persian Gulf.
        GWOT.--In multiple theaters in the war on terror, your Navy is
    conducting Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) and Expanded MIO.
    EMIO is the maritime component of the GWOT and its purpose is to deter,
    delay and disrupt the movement of terrorists and terrorist-related
    materials at sea. With our extensive MIO experience in the Persian Gulf
    and elsewhere, we are well trained to monitor, query and board merchant
    vessels, and we have done so 2,200 times in the last year alone.
        We are actively participating in an ongoing series of Proliferation
    Security Initiative (PSI) exercises as well as working groups composed
    of operational experts from PSI partner nations in an effort to prevent
    the flow of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials. This
    initiative is led by the State Department and envisions partnerships of
    states working in concert to develop a broad range of legal,
    diplomatic, economic, military, and other tools to interdict shipment
    of such items.
        We have also been working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to
    better defend the homeland, including developing a new operational
    concept called Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). MDA will enable
    identification of threats as early and as distant from our borders as
    possible to determine the optimal course of action. Armed with this
    better awareness and visibility, we will provide an active, layered
    system of defense that incorporates not only the maritime domain, but
    space and cyber-space as well. The success of these operations can be
    credited to the synergy developed between our Navy, the Coast Guard and
    other agencies.
        I would like to point out here, as I have testified in prior
    hearings, that to fully develop our concept of Sea Basing and to
    realize the fruits of MDA for the defense of our homeland, we must take
    maximum advantage of the widely accepted rights codified by the Law of
    the Sea Convention.
        From transit passage, to reaffirming the sovereign immunity of our
    warships, providing a framework for countering excessive claims of
    other states, preserving the unfettered right to conduct military
    activities in the exclusive economic zones, the Convention provides the
    stable and predictable legal regime with which to conduct our
    operations today and in the future. Joining the Convention will support
    ongoing U.S. military operations, including continued prosecution of
    the Global War on Terrorism, and will enhance our leadership role in
    maritime matters. I strongly support United States' accession to the
    Law of the Sea Convention because joining the Convention will
    strengthen our nation's defenses.
        Operation UNIFIED ASSISTANCE.--By sea-basing our relief efforts for
    South Asian tsunami victims in Operation UNIFIED ASSISTANCE, for
    example, the ABRAHAM LINCOLN CSG and the BONHOMME RICHARD ESG
    (including Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit) delivered
    more than 6,000,000 pounds of relief supplies and equipment quickly and
    with more political acceptance than may have been possible with land-
    based relief efforts.
        In addition, nine of our versatile P-3C reconnaissance and
    surveillance aircraft supported search and rescue operations, while the
    High Speed Vessel (HSV) SWIFT, an aluminum-hulled catamaran, deployed
    from Naval Station Ingleside, Texas, in January to provide high-speed
    connectivity to the shore with its ability to transit shallow water.
    The hospital ship USNS MERCY is now on scene to provide a base of
    operations for joint U.S. military medical organizations and recognized
    international nongovernmental and private relief organizations. And,
    more than 400 Seabees assisted in disaster recovery efforts such as
    clearing roads, removing debris and assessing damage.
        Our most precious resource.--At the heart of everything good that
    is happening in our Navy today is the vital fact that we are winning
    the battle for people. We are attracting, developing, and retaining a
    talented cadre of professionals who have chosen a life of service. Our
    ability to challenge them with meaningful, satisfying work that lets
    them make a difference is fundamental to our covenant with them as
    leaders.
        To better fulfill this promise, we are in the process of developing
    a Human Capital Strategy that fits the twenty-first century--a strategy
    that delivers the right skills, at the right time, for the right work.
    We would not be in a position to do that today had we not first tackled
    the fundamentals: recruiting the right people, increasing retention,
    and attacking attrition.
        We have consistently met or exceeded our recruiting goals since
    2000. This has allowed more selectivity and a consequent increase in
    the quality of recruits. Nearly 15 percent of our current recruits, for
    example, now have college experience, up by more than 300 percent since
    2000. More than 95 percent of new recruits now have high school
    diplomas. And minority officer applications have increased by 27
    percent.
        We have experienced extraordinary retention in our Navy fostered by
    a new culture of choice and a focus on professional development for our
    Sailors. This new culture has led to the highest retention in our
    history. Therefore we are able to be more selective in recruiting and
    establish the kind of competitive environment for reenlistment and
    detailing. This, in turn, allows us to more effectively shape of the
    force, developing a more educated and experienced group of
    professionals to lead and manage our high-tech Navy. Sailors in many
    ratings have been given new opportunities to compete and grow in our
    institution through adjusted NEC-targeted Selective Reenlistment
    Bonuses and the Perform-To-Serve program. We have also piloted choice
    in assignments with a new Assignment Incentive Pay pilot program.
    Sailors are now able to compete for select jobs in duty stations across
    the globe.
        Since 2000, we have also reduced attrition by nearly 33 percent.
    This past year alone, leaders throughout our Navy attacked the number
    one cause for attrition: illegal drug use. Despite an increase in
    testing of nine percent Navy-wide, the number of positive samples was
    down by 20 percent since 2003. In short, we now have the highest
    quality workforce the Navy has ever seen.
        Readiness to fight.--We have a responsibility to you in the
    Congress and to the taxpayers to ensure that the Navy the nation has
    already bought is properly equipped. We have invested billions of
    dollars in training, maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, flying hours
    and steaming days so that the current force is prepared on a day-to-day
    basis to deliver combat power whenever and wherever it is needed. Today
    we have the best readiness performance I've seen in my career.
        To enhance our Navy's ability to respond to crises whenever and
    wherever needed, we implemented a Global Concept of Operations that
    increases both the number and capabilities of naval assets that are
    forward deployed throughout the world. This new operating concept
    delivers a sustainable global reach to influence current events through
    the sovereign presence of our naval forces.
        This past year, we maintained Fleet Response Plan's (FRP's) ``6+2''
    readiness to consistently deliver six forward-deployed or ready-to-
    surge CSGs almost immediately, plus two additional CSGs in 90 days or
    less. The FRP allows us to surge 50 percent more combat power on short
    notice to deal with future global contingencies than in the past. For
    example, we were able to maintain the JOHN C STENNIS CSG in a ``ready
    for war'' state for 418 of the 509 days of its most recent readiness
    cycle that included deployed operations.

                                    Figure 2

        As part of the FRP, we demonstrated ``presence with a purpose'' in
    a multi-CSG surge exercise, SUMMER PULSE 2004 (see Figure 2), as well
    as the four-month deployments of USS RAMAGE and ROSS. We also surged
    USS BATAAN, BOXER, and KEARSARGE to enable Marine Corps deployments to
    ongoing operations in Iraq, and we maintain this surge capability
    across the Fleet 365 days per year. To support this level of
    operational availability, we have been improving our maintenance
    processes and organizations. Innovative programs like SHIPMAIN and the
    Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program (NAVRIIP)
    helped develop and share best practices, streamline maintenance
    planning and improved performance goals in shipyards, depots and other
    maintenance facilities.
        Transforming for the Future.--At the Naval War College in June
    2002, I introduced our vision of tomorrow's Navy, Sea Power 21 (see
    Figure 3).

                                    Figure 3

        Sea Power 21 began the process of translating theory into practice
    for a wide range of advanced concepts and technologies--ranging from
    the stand up of the Fleet ASW Command to the initiation of ballistic
    missile defense--that will increase the combat effectiveness of the
    joint force. We are moving forward with the main concepts of that
    vision to transform the way we fight.
        We have introduced Sea Strike capabilities that extended our reach
    and precision, providing joint force commanders with a potent mix of
    weapons. In OIF, we deployed F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons,
    providing greatly enhanced range, payload, and refueling capability.
    Tactical Tomahawk has entered service, allowing in-flight target re-
    programming and increasing our time sensitive strike capabilities. The
    Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP), the Advanced Targeting Forward-
    Looking Infrared (AT-FLIR), the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and
    the Multi-Functional Information Distribution System (MIDS) arrived in
    the Fleet and showed us the power of these new knowledge dominance
    technologies. The Advanced SEAL Delivery System made its first
    deployment with USS GREENEVILLE this year, and we started conversion of
    the third of four SSBNs for conventional strike and SOF insertion.
        Our Sea Shield capabilities also improved, extending the defensive
    umbrella over joint forces ashore during OIF. USS CURTIS WILBUR
    conducted the nation's first ballistic missile defense patrol. Within
    four years, 18 warships will be fitted with a transformational
    ballistic missile surveillance, tracking, and engagement capability. We
    also published an Anti-Submarine Warfare Concept of Operations (ASW
    CONOPs), describing ASW force attributes, warfighting principles, and
    development priorities.
        Recent results from at-sea experiments have yielded significant
    insights into revolutionary distributed ASW sensor technologies and
    communications that demonstrate the potential of this new CONOPs.
    Additionally, we refined our Mine Warfare Roadmap to expedite the
    fielding of new technologies and capabilities into the Fleet,
    demonstrated the defensive capabilities of Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes, and
    awarded a contract to design and develop the Multi-Mission Maritime
    Aircraft for maritime surveillance to replace the aging P-3.
        With our number one joint partner, the Marine Corps, we continue to
    explore options to best realize Sea Basing, studying the optimal ship
    mix for future ESGs and Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future)
    squadrons. We commissioned USS VIRGINIA (SSN 774), our first submarine
    designed for littoral missions, and accepted delivery of USS JIMMY
    CARTER (SSN 23) with significantly improved payload capability. We also
    approved baseline designs for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and begin
    construction on our first LCS in June of this year.
        Among our FORCEnet initiatives to integrate the power of a
    networked combat force, we established an enterprise-wide architecture
    that puts in place standards for both infrastructure management and the
    networking of combat systems. We have also developed a plan for
    increased use of unmanned systems in tactical ISR and collaborated with
    the Air Force to develop an Airborne Networking strategy for tactical
    as well as command and control aircraft. In that vein, we have begun to
    align the C\4\ISR concepts of all the Services: FORCEnet (Navy and
    Marine Corps), C\2\ Constellation (Air Force) and LandWarNet (Army). We
    have also enhanced joint and coalition interoperability in our
    deploying ships through installation of CENTRIX and COWAN nets.
        Sea Trial, our initiative to streamline and formalize our
    experimentation process, is up and running with the Fleet in charge.
    This past year, we conducted 43 different experiments, ranging from LCS
    concept of operations development to Missile Defense Surface Action
    Groups. We tested SSGN effectiveness in a joint scenario with networked
    forces at sea, in the air, and on land. We conducted a highly complex
    and challenging ASW experiment in UNDERSEA DOMINANCE 04, while we
    tested dynamic bandwidth management and reach-back in TRIDENT WARRIOR
    04. We sponsored leading edge technologies for future naval warfare
    including: X-Craft, an innovative ship to be used as a test platform
    for the Littoral Combat Ship; an operational-scale electromagnetic rail
    gun; new concepts for persistent littoral undersea warfare; programs to
    enhance the joint tactical use of space; and Sea Basing enablers. We
    also focused the Future Naval Capability program to close warfighting
    gaps and overcome technical barriers.
        We are also transforming the business of running the world's
    greatest Navy. Our Sea Enterprise Board of Directors employs a
    disciplined review process that helped ensure maximum effectiveness of
    every dollar we spend. In addition, we established a Corporate Business
    Council to aid business process transformation, and to foster a culture
    of productivity and continuous improvement. This forum of senior Navy
    leaders is chartered to:
      --Develop and advocate high potential, cross-functional initiatives
            and ensure enhanced performance and organizational
            efficiencies.
      --Ensure savings are harvested and returned to the leadership for
            reallocation against other Navy priorities.
      --Track and integrate Echelon II business initiatives, and facilitate
            barrier removal and organizational impediments to change.
      --Ensure Sea Enterprise and CNO Echelon II Execution Review lessons-
            learned are leveraged across all commands.
        Initiatives such as AirSpeed, Task Force Lean, SHIPMAIN, and
    NAVRIIP are also improving ship and aircraft support processes while
    sustaining readiness.
        Service that Makes a Difference.--Sailors are the core resource of
    the Navy and we compete with industry to retain them. Congressional
    commitment to competitive pay has made this possible including base-pay
    raises and elimination of out-of-pocket expenses for housing.
    Additionally, we have funded achievement of Homeport Ashore, aimed at
    moving single sea-duty Sailors to Bachelor Quarters by fiscal year
    2008.
        Quality of service has also been enhanced for the families of our
    Sailors. We have improved family housing and remain on track to
    eliminate inadequate family housing units by fiscal year 2007. Family
    medical care benefits have been enhanced through the initiation of
    TRICARE for Life, ensuring superb medical care for qualified families
    after their military service. We have also joined partnerships with
    private industry to provide mobile career opportunities and enhance the
    Spouse Employment Assistance Program.
        Training and education for our Sailors are a critical component of
    their quality of service. We have created a system to accelerate the
    implementation of training and education improvements that has become a
    model for DOD. These programs seek to create the workforce for the
    twenty-first century and to ensure the right skills, in the right
    place, at the right time. Education opportunities have also been
    enhanced through the Navy College Program, including partnerships with
    civilian colleges, to provide rating-related associate and bachelor
    degrees via distance learning.
        In July of last year, the Navy established a Professional Military
    Education (PME) Continuum. This continuum of learning will provide
    career-long educational opportunities for the professional and personal
    growth of Sailors. It incorporates Joint PME and Navy PME with advanced
    education and leadership training, and will be a key factor in job
    assignment and career progression.
        The Power of Alignment.--Over the last five years, we launched
    numerous initiatives aimed at increasing the alignment of our
    organization. Alignment within our Navy is about two fundamental
    things. First, it ensures that organizations, systems, and processes
    are constructed to effectively and efficiently produce a combat-ready
    Fleet. It also ensures we share a common understanding of our missions
    and objectives.
        As part of that effort, we created the Commander, Fleet Forces
    Command (CFFC) to integrate policies and requirements for manning,
    equipping, and training all Fleet units. This year, we put in place a
    Fleet requirements generation process with CFFC as the lead Fleet
    integrator, to review and approve all Navy requirements documents, and
    provide formal Fleet input at all requirements generation levels. We
    also aligned the Navy Warfare Development Command and warfare centers
    of excellence under CFFC, to stimulate concept development and
    technology insertion to the Fleet.
        We created Fleet Type Commanders to lead their communities from the
    waterfront. That effort is now helping us to better design a twenty-
    first century Human Capital Strategy, and to refine our training and
    maintenance processes.
        The Human Performance Center (HPC) was established in September
    2003 to apply Human Performance and Human System Integration principles
    in the research, development, and acquisition processes. HPC will help
    us understand the science of learning and ensure training is driven by
    Fleet requirements. This is helping to provide better growth and
    development opportunities, eliminate performance and training
    deficiencies, save money, and improve readiness.
        We established the Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNI) to
    guide the operations, administration, and support for Navy
    installations world-wide while reducing infrastructure management
    layers. CNI improved our capability to manage dispersed facility
    operations, conserve valuable resources, establish enterprise-wide
    standards, and improve our facility infrastructure.
        We established the Assistant CNO for Information Technology (ACNO-
    IT) to promote Navy-wide alignment between warfighting and business
    information technologies, and to ensure IT investments and resources
    are targeted for highest value efforts and return on investment.
        We also established the Commander, Navy Education and Training
    Command to serve as the Chief Learning Officer for the Navy and to be
    the single authority for individual training (officer and enlisted)
    strategy and policy.
        We improved the integration of our Total Force, streamlining
    Reserve headquarters and increasing Reserve access to Active platforms
    and equipment. On any given day during 2004, more than 20,000
    Reservists were on active duty engaged in Fleet and joint operations as
    part of the ``total force.''

                   YOUR NAVY TOMORROW--BRIDGING TO THE FUTURE

        Previously, our force structure was built to fight two major
    theater wars. However, the strategic landscape is vastly different
    today, and this new strategic landscape requires additional
    capabilities to accommodate a wide array of missions. We are therefore
    adjusting the scope and scale of our warfighting capabilities to
    support small-scale contingencies, such as peacekeeping and stability
    operations in addition to traditional warfighting requirements. We are
    also diversifying our capabilities in order to mitigate greater risk
    against irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive challenges that we face
    today and for the foreseeable future. (See Figure 4).

                                    Figure 4

        In meeting today's challenges, we must improve the strategic speed
    necessary to move significant, joint combat power anywhere around the
    globe. U.S. military force must be immediately employable and rapidly
    deployable, seizing and maintaining the initiative in any fight,
    anywhere.
        Second, we must continue to develop ``precision.'' As precision
    weaponry becomes commonplace throughout the joint force, we must
    develop concepts of operation and doctrine to maximize these powerful
    capabilities.
        Third, we must establish an ``unblinking eye'' above and throughout
    the battlespace. Technological leaps in miniaturization have begun to
    make possible an increasing array of unmanned sensors along with the
    communications networks and command and control (C\2\) capacity to
    yield pervasive awareness of the battlespace.
        We must also continue to develop to the fullest measure of joint
    interdependence. We are more effective as a fighting force and more
    efficient with taxpayer dollars when service missions and doctrine are
    designed from the start to be fully integrated.
        Attributes of Tomorrow's Success.--In short, speed and agility are
    the attributes that will define our operational success. But, the
    importance of these qualities extends beyond operations to the very
    foundations of our institution. This is true regardless of whether
    we're talking about our personnel system, the size and adaptability of
    our technological and industrial bases, the design and function of our
    supporting infrastructure, or the financial planning necessary to put
    combat power to sea. Speed and agility define our operational response
    but also need to characterize our acquisition process. We must continue
    to find new and better ways to develop and field our emerging
    technologies, and the cycle in which this occurs needs to be measured
    in months not years.
        The drive to increase our speed and agility means increasing the
    operational availability of our forces. We will do so by continuing to
    refine and test the Fleet Response Plan and its associated training and
    maintenance processes. It means studying our base structure to ensure
    that we are in a position to win. And it means that we have to do what
    we can to lighten the load of joint forces going ashore and reduce our
    ground footprint. To that end, we must more fully develop the
    operational concepts and tools required for the delivery of precision,
    sea-based fires and logistics to support forces ashore.
        The Maritime Domain.--The increasing dependence of our world on the
    seas, coupled with growing uncertainty of any nation's ability to
    ensure access in a future conflict will continue to drive the need for
    naval forces and decisive joint capability. Additionally, increased
    emphasis on the littorals and the global nature of the terrorist threat
    will demand the ability to strike where and when required and the
    maritime domain will serve as a key enabler for U.S. military force.
        We will continue to refine our operational concepts and appropriate
    technology investments to deliver the kind of dominant military power
    from the sea envisioned in Sea Power 21. We will also continue to
    pursue the operational concepts for sea basing persistent combat power.
    As part of that effort, we will work to expand our combat logistics
    force capacity, and we will build a Maritime Pre-positioning Force
    (MPF) with higher-capability alternatives to support sea basing a
    greater proportion of USMC tactical aviation, other supporting fires
    and logistics.
        We will invest in technology and systems to enable a moderate
    number of naval vessels to fight above their weight, delivering
    decisive, effects-based combat power in every tactical and operational
    dimension. We will pursue network-based, cross-platform systems for
    fusing sensor information and for supporting multi-static processing of
    sensor signals delivered in large part by sea-based, unmanned tactical
    surveillance systems. Our network-based command and decision systems
    will permit tactical commanders to view an integrated battlespace
    picture that supports time-critical, precise, accurate tactical
    actions. We will also pursue an offensive information operations
    capability on naval ships, aircraft, and weapons.
        We will also invest in technology and systems to enhance the
    survivability of the joint force against anti-access threats and
    threats in the densely packed littoral environment. These include hard-
    kill defense systems (including directed energy weapons) that are
    effective against anti-ship missiles, small high-speed surface craft,
    and torpedoes. They also include disabling (``non-lethal'') systems
    that can neutralize close-in ambiguous threats; radars and sonars that
    achieve higher performance without higher power; precise, retargetable,
    sea-based strike weapons with significant ``loiter on station''
    capability for close fire support; over-the-horizon surface-to-air
    missiles and the sensor network to target them; and higher-performance
    organic mine countermeasure systems, including systems for very shallow
    water.
        Total Force Endstrength.--Changes in our operational concepts and
    our investments in technology will require us to recruit, train and
    retain a warrior force that is more educated and technically savvy.
    Smart ship technologies embedded in future-design ship classes,
    capital-for-labor substitutions for performing manpower-intensive
    tasks, and condition-based maintenance with systems that identify when
    maintenance is required will all fundamentally change the nature of the
    work that we do. And because the nature of the work will change, we
    will need to reassess and modify the fundamental elements of our
    personnel structure to maximize the benefits of that change.
        Technology, innovation, and outsourcing are changing the
    endstrength requirements for our Navy. Technology continues to change
    the nature of work and allows us to optimize the number of personnel
    that once performed more manpower intensive tasks. Innovative manning
    methods such as Optimal Manning and Sea Swap also offer enormous
    potential and we will continue our experimentation. Outsourcing non-
    warfighting functions and civilian conversions also reduce endstrength
    requirements.
        We therefore seek to reduce our Navy endstrength to 352,700 active
    Sailors by the end of fiscal year 2006 as seen in Figure 5.

                                    Figure 5

        We have already used existing authorities and our Perform-to-Serve
    program to preserve the specialties, skill sets and expertise needed to
    continue the proper shaping of the force. To date, more than 4,000
    Sailors have been steered to undermanned ratings, and more than 42,000
    have been approved for in-rate reenlistment since the program began.
    Our Perform-to-Serve and early release programs are part of a
    deliberate, controlled, and responsible strategy to become a more
    experienced, better trained, but smaller force.
        The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) provides an
    additional opportunity to increase our organizational speed and agility
    by improving the way we hire, assign and compensate our civilian
    employees. NSPS will make us more effective, while preserving employee
    protections and benefits as well as the core values of the civil
    service.
        Force Capabilities.--As we evolve advanced concepts for employment
    of forces, we will also refine analyses and requirements, to include
    the appropriate number of ships, aircraft, and submarines. As discussed
    above, I believe that the wave of transformation now washing over our
    armed forces is essentially about developing the means for pervasive
    awareness of the battlespace, and for exploiting that knowledge with
    rapid and precise firepower to achieve desired strategic effects. We're
    going to carry that revolution forward into all mission areas, from
    supporting Marines ashore in Distributed Operations, to Anti-Submarine
    Warfare and Missile Defense. To achieve this, we are making significant
    Research and Development (R&D) investments to bring the necessary
    technologies rapidly to the Fleet, with R&D funds surging in fiscal
    year 2006 as several programs--including LCS, MMA, JSF and others--
    peak. See Figure 6 below.

                                    Figure 6

        In fact, our fiscal year 2006 budget request is up in every
    appropriation category compared to fiscal year 2005, including our
    investments in future capabilities. As can be seen in Figure 7, our
    investment glide slope is headed in a positive direction in this
    budget, including money for ship and aircraft procurement, R&D, and
    weapons programs.

                                    Figure 7

        In a sensor-rich construct, the numbers of platforms are no longer
    a meaningful measure of combat capability. And just as the number of
    people is no longer the primary yardstick by which we measure the
    strength or productivity of an organization in an age of increasing
    capital-for-labor substitutions, the number of ships is no longer
    adequate to gauge the health or combat capability of the Navy. The
    capabilities posture of the Fleet is what is most important.

                                    Figure 8

        In fact, your Navy can deliver much more combat power, more quickly
    now than we could twenty years ago when we had twice as many ships and
    half again as many people. See Figure 8, for example, on the effects of
    technology and new operational concepts on the capabilities of the
    Fleet.
        Shipbuilding and Design.--In addition to new concepts of operation
    and the technology that supports them, we are thinking anew about
    shipbuilding and design. For the first time in decades, we are building
    entirely new types of ships in fiscal year 2006 and beyond; the modular
    nature of these ships will give us flexibility and adaptability to
    fight in diverse environments against a variety of possible enemies. It
    also allows us to dramatically expand their growth potential with less
    technical and fiscal risk.
        What all of this means is that we are investing in the right
    capabilities for the future, not just the platforms that carry them.
    Further, I believe that the current low rate of ship construction and
    the resultant escalation of platform cost will constrain the future
    size of the Fleet. As I have previously testified, I don't believe that
    it's all about numbers; numbers have a quality all their own, there's
    no question about that. But, it is more important that we buy the right
    kinds of capabilities in the ships that we're procuring in the future,
    and that we properly posture our force to provide the speed and agility
    for seizing and retaining the initiative in any fight.
        The ultimate requirement for shipbuilding, however, will be shaped
    by the potential of emerging technologies, the amount of forward
    basing, and innovative manning concepts such as Sea Swap. Additional
    variables range from operational availability and force posture to
    survivability and war plan timelines.
        The notional diagram below (Figure 9) illustrates how manning
    concepts and anticipated technological adaptation will modify the
    number of ships required. The blue and yellow lines represent levels of
    combat capability and the ships required to achieve that capability.
    For example, the left side of the diagram shows our current number of
    ships (290) and the current projection of ships required to fully meet
    Global War on Terror requirements (375) in the future. The right side
    of the diagram shows a projection that provides the same combat
    capability but fully leverages technological advances with maximum use
    of Sea Swap. It is a range of numbers because the degree of
    technological adaptation is a variable, as is the degree to which we
    can implement Sea Swap. The middle portion of the curve (in the red
    ellipse) shows a projected range that assumes a less extensive
    projection of technological adaptation and use of Sea Swap. Although
    simplified, this diagram shows how the application of transformational
    new technologies coupled with new manning concepts will enable us to
    attain the desired future combat capability with a force posture
    between 260 and 325 ships.

                                    Figure 9

        Shipbuilding Priorities.--Our shipbuilding priorities and my
    testimony to Congress on that subject over the last five years have
    been consistent. My themes have been and remain:
      --The ship procurement rate--dating back to the procurement holiday
            of the 1990s--was insufficient to sustain long-term needs;
      --We seek a level-loaded shipbuilding investment stream;
      --We need to partner with you and with industry to regain our buying
            power. Acquisition and budgeting reforms, such as multi-year
            procurement, Economic Order Quantity, and other approaches help
            to stabilize the production path, and in our view, reduce per
            unit cost of ships and increase the shipbuilding rate.
        In no other area of our Armed Forces do we make such large capital
    investments that, in turn, impact important technological and
    industrial sectors of our economy. In making these investments, we
    would appreciate legislative relief with more flexible funding
    mechanisms to support shipbuilding--such as funding CVN-21 and LHA(R)
    over two years--as we fight a global war while transforming to meet the
    demands of the changed strategic landscape. Our investments are
    influenced by:
        Cost of War.--The shift in the strategic landscape occurs as we
    cope with the fiscal realities of funding current operations. Of note,
    the Navy absorbed $1.5 billion in corporate bills for Cost of War items
    not funded by fiscal year 2004 GWOT Supplemental. To meet this
    obligation, $200 million was charged to my Working Capital Fund, $600
    million was charged to O&M funds (including $135 million from CNI
    infrastructure), and $687 million was charged to our investment funds
    to fund force protection, equipment and personnel costs.
        Procurement cost growth.--Among the greatest risks we face is the
    spiraling cost of procurement for modern military systems, and
    shipbuilding and aircraft procurement are no exception. When adjusted
    for inflation, for example, the real cost increase in every class of
    ship and aircraft that we have bought since I was an Ensign, United
    States Navy, has been truly incredible.

                                   Figure 10

        It becomes more so when taken in comparison to other capital goods
    like automobiles, where the inflation-adjusted cost growth has been
    relatively flat over the same period of time. Cost increases have grown
    beyond our ability to control as compared to decades prior. As we seek
    greater combat capability and greater operational efficiencies through
    upgraded power, propulsion, and computing technologies, we find a ratio
    of cost growth beyond our seeming control, which may not be fully
    explainable solely by reduced economies of scale. See Figure 10.
        The total costs of manpower have increased significantly since I
    have been CNO. Those costs are having an impact, not only on our
    ability to maximize the talents of our people, but also on the
    investments needed to transform our combat capability for the future.
    We have kept faith with those who serve by advocating better pay and
    benefits, and we have also kept faith with the taxpayers who expect
    that the Navy they have bought and paid for is ready when you call upon
    us. Having said that, the combat power of your Navy is not defined by
    the number of Sailors in the ranks. We are therefore taking steps to
    redefine our approach to human capital and to our operational concepts.
    Once again, I ask you to approve a force with reductions in personnel
    endstrength.

                      OUR FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

        This past year our Navy's budget request continued our effort to
    sustain our current readiness gains, shape the twenty-first century
    workforce, and invest in our transformational Sea Power 21 vision while
    harvesting the efficiencies needed to fund and support these three
    critical priorities. The current strategic environment demands balanced
    funding between current operations and future investments, and the
    fiscal year 2006 budget meets this balance in funding.
        This year we intend to:
      --Continue to deliver the right readiness at the right cost to fight
            the Global War on Terrorism and support the nation's war
            fighting needs;
      --Accelerate development of our Human Capital Strategy that delivers
            the right skills, at the right time, for the right work,
            unleashing the power of our people;
      --Maximize our investment in Sea Power 21 capabilities to transform
            our force and the joint warfighting team;
      --At the same time, we will continue to pursue the Sea Enterprise
            improvements that make us a more effective Navy in both fiscal
            year 2006 and beyond.
        As our budget is finalized in the coming months, there will be a
    number of fiscal issues and processes that will have an impact,
    specifically: the cost of war in Iraq, Base Realignment and Closure
    decisions, and the findings of the Quadrennial Defense Review. With
    that in mind, our Navy budget request for fiscal year 2006 and the
    future includes:
      --Four (4) new construction ships in fiscal year 2006: One (1) SSN
            774; One (1) Littoral Combat Ship; One (1) T-AKE; and One (1)
            LPD-17.
          The investment plan across the future year's defense program
            (FYDP) calls for 49 new construction ships, including DD(X),
            LHA(R) Flight 0, MPF(F), CVN-21, and SSN 774s. While our build
            rate dips to four ships in this budget year, this is a
            reflection of a shift in focus to the next generation surface
            combatants and sea basing capabilities.
      --Procurement of 138 new aircraft in fiscal year 2006, including the
            first four EA-18G aircraft and three Firescout unmanned aerial
            vehicles (UAVs). The budget continues to maximize return on
            procurement dollars, primarily through the use of multi-year
            procurement (MYP) for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, the E-2C, the
            MH-60S and the KC-130J programs. We have also made research and
            development investments in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and
            the broad area anti-submarine, anti-surface, maritime and
            littoral intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)
            capable Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).
      --Investment in transformational unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV)
            like the Mission Reconfigurable UUV System, and unmanned
            aviation vehicles (UAV) such as the Broad Area Maritime
            Surveillance UAV and the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. The
            budget also requests funding for experimental hull forms like
            the X-Craft, and other advanced technologies including the
            Joint Aerial Common Sensor (JACS).
      --A 3.1 percent basic pay raise for our Sailors, a 2.3 percent pay
            raise for our civilian workforce, and investment in housing and
            Public-Private Ventures that will help eliminate inadequate
            barracks and family housing by fiscal year 2007 and enable us
            to house shipboard Sailors ashore when their vessel is in
            homeport by fiscal year 2008;
      --Readiness investment that supports the Fleet Response Plan,
            including sustained funding for ship and aircraft operations,
            aviation depot maintenance, and precision guided munitions.
            This includes improvements in ship maintenance and training
            scheduling to maximize surge capabilities.
    Continuing to deliver the right readiness at the right cost to fight
            the Global War on Terrorism
        Getting to the fight faster to seize and retain the initiative
    means that a key word in our future is ``surge.'' If a resource doesn't
    have surge capability, we are not going to own it. Every part of the
    Fleet will be organized around this surge operational concept and its
    associated training, maintenance, and logistics processes. We must
    understand and adapt our warfare doctrine, supporting procedures,
    training, and schedules to take best advantage of FRP and other
    emerging operational constructs. And we must also determine, accurately
    articulate, and continuously validate our readiness requirements.
    Taking prudent risks and attacking cost will permit us to fund
    essential requirements, optimizing the operational impact of today's
    Navy while creating a future Navy that capitalizes upon and can rapidly
    field new technology.
      --Ship Operations and Flying Hours requests funds for ship operations
            OPTEMPO of 51 days per quarter for our deployed forces and 24
            days per quarter for our non-deployed forces. We have properly
            funded the flying hour account to support the appropriate
            levels of readiness and longer employability requirements of
            the FRP. This level of steaming and flying hours will enable
            our ships and air wings to achieve the required readiness over
            the longer periods defined by the Fleet Response Plan, and as a
            result, it will improve our ability to surge in crisis and
            sustain readiness during deployment.
      --Ship and Aviation Maintenance. We have made significant
            improvements these last few years by reducing major ship depot
            maintenance backlogs and aircraft depot-level repair back
            orders; improving aircraft engine spares; adding ship depot
            availabilities; ramping up ordnance and spare parts production;
            maintaining steady ``mission capable'' rates in deployed
            aircraft; fully funding aviation initial outfitting; and
            investing in reliability improvements. Our fiscal year 2006
            request continues the improved availability of non-deployed
            aircraft and meets our 100 percent deployed airframe goals. Our
            ship maintenance request continues to ``buy-down'' the annual
            deferred maintenance backlog and sustains our overall ship
            maintenance requirement. We are making great strides in
            improving the visibility and cost-effectiveness of our ship
            depot maintenance program, reducing the number of changes in
            work package planning and using our continuous maintenance
            practices when changes must be made.
      --Shore Installations. Our Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and
            Modernization (SRM) program remains focused on improving
            readiness and quality of service for our Sailors. Our fiscal
            year 2006 Military Construction and Sustainment program
            reflects difficult but necessary tradeoffs between shore
            infrastructure and fleet recapitalization. Facilities
            sustainment is 95 percent in fiscal year 2006, the same as in
            fiscal year 2005. Our budget request keeps us on a course to
            achieve the DON goals to eliminate inadequate family and
            bachelor housing by fiscal year 2007 and provide Homeport
            Ashore Bachelor Housing by fiscal year 2008. We are exploring
            innovative solutions to provide safe, efficient installations
            for our service members, including design-build improvements,
            and BRAC land sales via the GSA Internet. Additionally, with
            the establishment of Navy Installations Command, we have
            improved our capability to manage our dispersed facility
            operations, conserve valuable resources, establish enterprise-
            wide standards and continue to improve our facility
            infrastructure.
      --Precision Guided Munitions receive continued investment in our
            fiscal year 2006 request with emphasis on the Joint Stand-Off
            Weapon (JSOW), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Tactical
            Tomahawk (TACTOM), and Laser-Guided Bomb (LGB) inventory
            levels. Joint partnerships with the Air Force and Army in
            several of our munitions programs continue to help us optimize
            both our inventories and precious research and development
            investments and will remain a focus for us in the future.
      --Training Readiness. We continue to make significant strides in this
            critical area. In fiscal year 2004, the Congress supported two
            important programs to advance our training readiness. First,
            you endorsed the Training Resource Strategy (TRS), to provide
            more complex threat scenarios and to improve the overall
            realism and value of our training. Additionally, you funded the
            Tactical Training Theater Assessment and Planning Program to
            provide for a comprehensive training range sustainment plan.
            Our fiscal year 2006 budget continues this work. We are working
            to make the Joint National Training Capability a reality. We
            have established a single office to direct policy and
            management oversight for all Navy ranges as well as serve as
            the resource sponsor for all training ranges, target
            development and procurement, and the Navy portion of the Major
            Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB).
      --Environmental Readiness. I would like to highlight our gratitude to
            you in the Congress for the amendments to the Endangered
            Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and
            the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) enacted in the 2003 and
            2004 NDAA. These amendments made favorable changes that have
            improved our Navy's performance in both environmental
            stewardship and Fleet training operations. Clarifying our
            current and future responsibilities and providing assurances
            that these standards will remain constant is helping us to plan
            and resource for stable, long-term programs that will benefit
            both fleet readiness and the land and life that abounds on and
            around our ranges.
    Accelerating Development of our Human Capital Strategy
        When I testified before your committee last year, I said that we
    would take the opportunity afforded by success in recruiting, retention
    and attrition to begin the hard work of fundamentally restructuring our
    personnel system to compete for talent in the twenty-first century
    marketplace. Your support has been instrumental in getting to this
    point. The improvements and pilots that Congress has supported--
    including bonuses, pay table adjustments, retirement reforms, better
    medical benefits, and our Sea Warrior initiatives--are having the
    desired impact.
        We also continue to challenge all assumptions when it comes to
    determining manning strategies. The Fleet is implementing best
    practices from last year's Optimal Manning experiments to find the
    right mix of talent for pilot programs in USS NIMITZ and Carrier Air
    Wing ELEVEN. We've begun a new pilot program in USS DECATUR designed to
    allow Chief Petty Officers to fill the majority of Division Officer
    billets. And we are continuing our Sea Swap experiments with USS
    GONZALEZ, LABOON, and STOUT crews, even as we examine results from
    previous DD/DDG experiments to determine this concept's applicability
    to other ship classes.
        Inherent to our new Human Capital Strategy will be the pursuit of
    new technologies and competitive personnel policies that will
    streamline combat and non-combat personnel positions, improve the
    integration of active and reserve missions, and reduce the Navy's total
    manpower structure. We will change our processes to eliminate ``make-
    work,'' and use available technology to do away with work that is
    unfulfilling. We're going to change policies and organizational
    structures--like non-rated billets--that inhibit the growth and
    development of our people. And we're going to build future ships and
    aircraft to maximize human performance while inspiring great leaps in
    human possibilities.
        Our fiscal year 2006 budget request includes the following tools we
    need to enhance mission accomplishment and professional growth:
      --Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). Targeted bonuses such as SRB
            are critical to our ability to compete for our highly trained
            and talented workforce both within the Navy and with employers
            across the nation as well. Proper funding, adequate room for
            growth and the flexible authorities needed to target the right
            skills against the right market forces are important to the
            shape of the workforce. This program specifically targets
            retention bonuses against the most critical skills we need for
            our future. We ask for your continued support and full funding
            of this program.
      --Perform to Serve (PTS). Two years ago, we introduced PTS to align
            our Navy personnel inventory and skill sets through a centrally
            managed reenlistment program and instill competition in the
            retention process. The pilot program has proven so successful
            in steering Sailors in overmanned ratings into skill areas
            where they are most needed that the program has been expanded.
            More than 46,000 Sailors have been steered to undermanned
            ratings and approved for in-rate reenlistment since the program
            began in 2003 and we will continue this effort in 2006.
      --Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) is a financial incentive designed to
            attract qualified Sailors to a select group of difficult to
            fill duty stations. AIP allows Sailors to bid for additional
            monetary compensation in return for service in these locations.
            An integral part of our Sea Warrior effort, AIP will enhance
            combat readiness by permitting market forces to efficiently
            distribute Sailors where they are most needed. Since the pilot
            program began in 2003, more than 9,000 AIP bids have been
            processed resulting in nearly 3,000 Sailors receiving bonuses
            for duty in these demanding billets. We ask for continued
            support of this initiative.

                                   Figure 11

      --Professional Military Education (PME). Full implementation of the
            relevant provisions of the fiscal year 2005 National Defense
            Authorization Act (NDAA) is a significant step forward for
            Joint PME, and has my full support.
          This year, we plan to take several actions that can ensure that
            our professional military education programs continue to foster
            and build upon the confidence we currently experience in our
            joint warfighting capabilities.
          First, JPME should focus more sharply on the interagency aspect
            of military operations. Given the necessity of interagency
            planning and decision-making in the execution of the Global War
            on Terrorism, we should examine this area closely for possible
            introduction to the JPME requirement.
          Additionally, we need to prepare more officers to be joint
            operational planners. These officers must be ready to plan and
            execute new joint operational concepts in both headquarters
            staffs and joint task forces. We also need to better identify
            the knowledge and skill sets required for specific joint duty
            assignments, and then provide learning opportunities that
            target these requirements via multiple delivery methods. This
            effort should capitalize on reusable content and joint
            standards at all of our service colleges as well as training
            within the Combatant Commands.
          In view of the foregoing, JPME is clearly relevant to the Navy's
            development of a Human Capital Strategy. In fact, JPME must be
            a central element of that strategy if we are to be successful
            in creating a better trained, better educated and better
            compensated, but smaller workforce in the future. In this
            regard, we are moving forward with efforts to exploit the Naval
            War College's web-enabled, non-resident program to create new
            delivery mechanisms for PME across the total force. That
            includes not just active and reserve forces, but our civilian
            workforce as well. The Defense Leadership and Management
            Program (DLAMP) is an important tool that complements DON
            efforts in this area, and I support DLAMP initiatives to better
            incorporate senior civilians from DOD and other federal
            agencies in PME programs. Lastly, I believe we can improve the
            trust and confidence of officers in coalition forces by
            focusing on the issue of participation by international
            officers in our JPME programs and by U.S. students at foreign
            war colleges.
      --The Integrated Learning Environment (ILE) is the heart of our
            Revolution in Training. ILE is a family of systems that, when
            linked, will provide our Sailors with the ability to develop
            their own learning plans, diagnose their strengths and
            weaknesses, and tailor their education to support both personal
            and professional growth. They will manage their career
            requirements, training and education records. It will match
            content to career requirements so training is delivered at the
            right time. Most importantly, these services will be provided
            anytime, anywhere via the Internet and the Navy-Marine Corps
            Intranet (NMCI).
    Maximizing Our Investment in Sea Power 21
        As I have previously testified, Sea Power 21 defines the
    capabilities and processes that the twenty-first century Navy will
    deliver. Bridging to the future described in that vision requires
    innovation, experimentation, and rapid technology insertion resulting
    in mid- and long-term war fighting improvements. Speed, agility and a
    commitment to joint and coalition interoperability are core attributes
    of this evolving Navy. Further analyzing, understanding, and applying
    prudent risk to capability and program decisions are essential to
    achieving future war fighting wholeness.
        This year, we will further maximize our investment in Sea Power 21
    capabilities, pursuing distributed and networked solutions, focusing on
    the power of Sea Basing and our complementary capability and alignment
    with our number one joint partner, the U.S. Marine Corps.
        Sea Basing is the projection of operational independence. Our
    future investments will exploit the largest maneuver areas on the face
    of the earth: the sea. Sea Basing serves as the foundation from which
    offensive and defensive fires are projected--making Sea Strike and Sea
    Shield a reality. Sea Basing capabilities include: Joint Command and
    Control, Afloat Power Projection and Integrated Joint Logistics. Our
    intent is to maximize our sea basing capability and minimize as much as
    possible our reliance on shore-based support nodes. To do this, we will
    make doctrinal, organizational and operational changes mandated by this
    concept and by the underlying technology that makes it possible. We
    have an opportunity here, along with the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S.
    Army, to reexamine some of the fundamentals of not only how we move and
    stage ground forces, but how we fight ashore as well.

                                   Figure 12

        Our highest priority Sea Basing investments include:
      --Surface Combatant Family of Ships. As I've already testified, the
            power of joint forces in OIF was in the synergy of individual
            service strengths. The same concept holds true within the Navy
            itself. We seek the synergy of networks, sensors, weapons and
            platforms that will make the joint force greater in combat
            power than the sum of the individual parts. Development of the
            next generation of surface combatants as ``sea frames''--
            analogous to ``air frames''--that are part of a modular system
            is just such an endeavor.
          The surface combatant family of ships allows us to dramatically
            expand the growth potential of our surface combatants with less
            technical and fiscal risk. To bring these concepts to life and
            to take them--and the fight--to the enemy, we have decided upon
            three entirely new ship classes. The first to premier will be
            the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in 2007. The advanced guided
            missile and strike destroyer (DD(X)) will follow in about 2011.
            And just a few years after the first DD(X), the keel will be
            laid on the first CG(X), the next class of cruiser designed
            from the keel up for theater air and ballistic missile defense.
          Our research and development efforts and experimentation with
            high speed and theater support vessels like HSV SWIFT and the
            X-Craft are helping us reduce our technical risk and apply
            important lessons in hull design and mission modularity to the
            development of the surface combatant family of ships. DD(X)is
            the heart of the family and will spiral promising technologies
            to both CG(X) and LCS in the future. I will discuss each one of
            these ships in more detail below.
      --CVN 21 is the centerpiece of the Navy Carrier Strike Group of the
            future. It will bring transformational capabilities to the
            fleet, including a new electrical generation and distribution
            system, the electro-magnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS),
            a new/enlarged flight deck, weapons and material handling
            improvements, and a crew reduction of at least 800 personnel.
            It will be able to generate higher daily and sustained sortie
            rates than our NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers. Our fiscal year
            2006 request of $873 million in SCN and R&D funding continues
            the development of CVN 21 and several critical technologies in
            the lead ship, including the EMALS prototype and testing
            already ongoing in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Construction of the
            CVN 21 will start in fiscal year 2008 with delivery in fiscal
            year 2015.
      --MPF(F). These future Maritime Pre-positioning Ships will serve a
            broader operational function than current pre-positioned ships,
            creating greatly expanded operational flexibility and
            effectiveness. We envision a force that will enhance the
            responsiveness of the joint team by the at-sea assembly of a
            Marine Expeditionary Brigade that arrives by high-speed airlift
            or sealift from the United States or forward operating
            locations or bases. These ships will off-load forces, weapons
            and supplies selectively while remaining far over the horizon,
            and they will reconstitute ground maneuver forces aboard ship
            after completing assaults deep inland. They will sustain in-
            theater logistics, communications and medical capabilities for
            the joint force for extended periods as well. Our fiscal year
            2006 request of $66 million in research and development
            reflects our emphasis on Sea Basing capabilities.
      --CG Modernization. The CG Modernization program was restructured in
            fiscal year 2006 in accordance with congressional direction.
            Under the restructured plan, the older Baseline 2 and 3 ships
            will be modernized first. The Cruiser Modernization Program is
            a mid-life upgrade for our existing AEGIS cruisers that will
            ensure modern, relevant combat capability well into this
            century and against evolving threats. These warships will
            provide enhanced area air defense to the joint force commander.
            These modifications include installations of the Cooperative
            Engagement Capability, which enhances and leverages the air
            defense capability of these ships, and an ASW improvement
            package. These converted cruisers could also be available for
            integration into ballistic missile defense missions when that
            capability matures. Our first cruiser modernization begins in
            fiscal year 2008.
      --DDG-51 Modernization. The DDG-51 class guided missile destroyer
            program has been an unqualified success. We believe these ships
            will continue to be a ``workhorse'' of the Fleet for the
            foreseeable future, with 62 hulls eventually planned. But the
            first ships of this class are already approaching mid-life.
            Keeping these ships in fighting shape will mean making the
            appropriate investment in their engineering plants and updating
            their combat system to pace new threats in the next two
            decades. It is also important that we continue to apply new
            technologies to the ARLEIGH BURKEs that will permit reductions
            in crew size, so that the Navy's manpower footprint continues
            to decrease. Funding for DDG modernization begins in fiscal
            year 2006, and the program will commence with the completion of
            the last new construction DDGs of the ARLEIGH BURKE class in
            fiscal year 2010.
        Sea Strike is the projection of precise and persistent offensive
    power.

                                   Figure 13

        The core capabilities include Time Sensitive Strike; Intelligence,
    Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Ship to Objective Maneuver; and
    Electronic Warfare and Information Operations. We are already investing
    in impressive programs that will provide the capabilities necessary to
    support Sea Strike; these include the following fiscal year 2006
    priorities:
      --DD(X).--The technology engine for the Fleet and the bridge to
            CG(X), DD(X) is the centerpiece of a surface combatant family
            of ships and will deliver a broad range of capabilities. This
            advanced multi-mission destroyer will bring revolutionary
            improvements to precise, time-critical strike and joint fires
            and our Expeditionary and Carrier Strike Groups of the future.
          Transformational and leap ahead technologies include an electric
            drive and integrated power system; an Advanced Gun System with
            the high rate of fire and precision to reach almost eight times
            farther and command more than 110 times the area of our current
            five inch capability; the new Multi-Function Radar/Volume
            Search Radar suite; optimal manning through advanced system
            automation, stealth through reduced acoustic, magnetic, IR, and
            radar cross-section signature; and enhanced survivability
            through automated damage control and fire protection systems.
            DD(X) is an enabler both technically and operationally. This
            seaframe will also reduce our seagoing manpower requirements
            and will lower total ownership costs.
          This program will provide a baseline for spiral development of
            technology and engineering to support a range of future
            seaframes such as CG(X), LHA(R) and CVN-21; the new Multi-
            Function Radar/Volume Search Radar suite is currently
            operational at our Wallops Island site and is delivering
            impressive results. It will also enable the transformation of
            our operations ashore as on-demand, persistent, time-critical
            strike revolutionizes our joint fire support and ground
            maneuver concepts of operation and frees our strike fighter
            aircraft for more difficult targets at greater ranges. DD(X)'s
            all-electric drive, called the Integrated Power System (IPS),
            will not only drive the ship through the water, but will also
            generate the kind of power capacity that will enable eventual
            replacement of the Advanced Gun System (AGS). When combined
            with the physical capacity and volume of the hull form, DD(X)
            could lead us to revolutionary technologies from the naval
            research enterprise like the electromagnetic rail gun and
            directed energy weapons. The fact that rail guns do not require
            any explosives will free up magazine space for other mission
            areas and enhance survivability. DD(X) will be in service for
            decades after that; having the kind of growth potential to
            install those kinds of technologies dramatically lowers our
            future development costs.
          The funding profile for DD(X) supports the 14,000-ton design and
            the S-Band Volume Search Radar (VSR). Lead ship construction
            starts in fiscal year 2007.
      --JSF.--The Joint Strike Fighter will enhance our Navy precision with
            unprecedented stealth and range as part of the family of tri-
            service, next-generation strike aircraft. It will maximize
            commonality and technological superiority while minimizing life
            cycle cost. The JSF remains vital to our future. It will give
            us the range, persistence and survivability needed to keep our
            strike fighters viable for years to come.
      --VIRGINIA-class submarine (SSN-774).--The first ship of this class
            was commissioned this year. This class will replace LOS
            ANGELES-class (SSN-688) attack submarines and will incorporate
            new capabilities, including unmanned vehicles, and the ability
            to support Special Warfare forces. It will be an integral part
            of the joint, networked, dispersed twenty-first century Fleet.
            Our fiscal year 2004 budget funded the first of five submarines
            under the multi-year procurement (MYP) contract authorized by
            Congress. The second submarine of the MYP contract was funded
            in fiscal year 2005. Approximately $100 million in economic
            order quantity advance procurement is funded in fiscal year
            2006 in support of this contract.
      --SSGN.--Funding is included in fiscal year 2006 to continue the SSGN
            conversion program. Our future SSGN capability will provide
            covert conventional strike platforms capable of carrying 154
            Tomahawk missiles. The SSGN will also have the capacity and
            capability to support Special Operations Forces for an extended
            period, providing clandestine insertion and retrieval by
            lockout chamber, dry deck shelters or the Advanced Seal
            Delivery System, and they will be arrayed with a variety of
            unmanned vehicles to enhance the joint force commander's
            knowledge of the battlespace. The inherently large capacity of
            these hulls will enable us to leverage future payloads and
            sensors for years to come. We still expect our first SSGN to be
            operational in 2007.
      --EA-18G.--Using the demonstrated growth capacity of the F/A-18E/F,
            the EA-18G will quickly recapitalize our Electronic Attack
            capability at lower procurement cost, with significant savings
            in operating and support costs; all while providing the growth
            potential for future electronic warfare (EW) system
            improvements. It will use the Improved Capability Three (ICAP
            III) receiver suite and provide selective reactive jamming
            capability to the war fighter. This will both improve the
            lethality of the air wing and enhance the commonality of
            aircraft on the carrier deck. We begin purchasing airframes in
            fiscal year 2006 and will achieve initial operating capability
            in 2009.
        Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive power.
    Sea Shield will enhance deterrence and war fighting power by way of
    real-time integration with joint and coalition forces, high speed
    littoral attack platforms setting and exploiting widely distributed
    sensors, and the direct projection of defensive power in the littoral
    and deep inland.

                                   Figure 14

        Sea Shield capabilities include: Homeland Defense, Sea and Littoral
    Control, and Theater Air and Missile Defense. Our highest priority Sea
    Shield programs this year include:
        Mine Warfare Programs.--We intend to field a set of unmanned,
    modular Mine Counter-Measure (MCM) systems employable from a variety of
    host platforms to minimize our risk from mines and sustain our national
    economic and military access to every corner of the globe. Our future
    MCM capability will be faster, more precise and organic to both
    Expeditionary and Carrier Strike Groups and will ultimately remove both
    the man and our mammals from the minefield. Within the FYDP, we expect
    to reduce the time that it takes to render sea mining ineffective by at
    least half of the time that it takes us today. Our fiscal year 2006
    budget request includes $943 million in funding to maintain and upgrade
    our existing forces (MCM-1 class ships, MH-53E helicopters) as well as
    funding to field advanced technologies necessary to transform MCM
    capability. We have also requested $6.78 billion across the FYDP for
    mine warfare programs, to include unmanned vehicles such as the Mission
    Reconfigurable Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (MRUUV) which, when fielded,
    will provide a clandestine mine reconnaissance capability from our LOS
    ANGELES-class submarines, and the Remote Minehunting System on ARLEIGH
    BURKE-class destroyers. Both of these programs will reach Initial
    Operating Capability (IOC) within the FYDP. Future introduction of the
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) with mine warfare mission modules will
    improve the ability of Strike Groups to neutralize mine threats in
    parallel with--not in sequence before--other operations.
      --Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).--The role of LCS is to provide access
            to joint forces in the littorals; a capability gap we
            identified as a result of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.
            During the past few years, considerable campaign analysis and
            fleet battle experiments have demonstrated that naval forces
            need better ways to fight mines; small, fast, highly armed
            boats; and quiet diesel and advanced air-independent propulsion
            submarines operating in shallow waters. The performance of U.S.
            Navy Patrol Craft and the experimental HSV-X1 JOINT VENTURE in
            the Iraqi littoral was critical to the early detection and
            destruction of the Iraqi mine threat. The same kind of
            capability needs to be delivered in a fast, maneuverable,
            shallow-draft platform that has the survivability to operate
            independently. LCS will have these characteristics, along with
            self-defense, navigation, command-and-control systems, and
            reduced requirements for manpower relative to current warship
            design. The ship will have a top speed of 56 knots, and a crew
            requirement of only 76 people.
          LCS will be built from the keel up to be a part of a netted and
            distributed force, and will be the first ship designed with
            FORCEnet as a requirement. The main battery of LCS will be its
            off-board systems: manned helicopters and unmanned aerial,
            surface and underwater vehicles. It is the off-board vehicles--
            with both sensors and weapons--that will enter the highest
            threat areas. Its modular design, built to open-systems
            architecture standards, provides flexibility and a means to
            rapidly reconfigure mission modules and payloads. In fact, 40
            percent of LCS's payload volume will be reconfigurable. As
            technology matures, the Navy will not have to buy a new LCS
            platform, but will upgrade the mission modules or the unmanned
            systems.
          LCS also will have an advanced hull design and be significantly
            different from any warship that has been built for the U.S.
            Navy. We searched the world over for the very best systems,
            balancing risk with affordability and speed of construction.
            LCS will share a common three-dimensional radar with U.S. Coast
            Guard cutters. In addition, there are three other nations
            interested in purchasing the seaframe, while 22 more are
            interested in the mission modules.
          Detail design and construction of the first LCS Flight 0 ship
            will begin in June of this year. The LCS requirements process
            is tailored to support the rapid delivery of two flights
            (Flight 0 and 1) of ships, using an evolutionary, ``spiral''
            acquisition approach. The spiral development process allows
            time-phased capability improvement for ship and mission
            systems. The first ship of the class will be 80 percent
            complete when construction on the second ship begins. This
            incremental development and delivery strategy supports the
            ship's accelerated acquisition schedule, diverse threat and
            capability requirements, and dynamic levels of technology push/
            pull. The ship's modular, open design will also enable
            lifecycle adaptability and affordability.
      --Missile Defense.--Our Navy is poised to contribute significantly in
            fielding sea-based missile defense capabilities to meet the
            near-term ballistic missile threat to our homeland, our
            deployed forces, and our friends and allies. We are working
            closely under the authority of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
            to deliver this much-needed capability to the nation's
            Combatant Commanders. Our sea-based missile defense programs
            experienced an important milestone this year with the first
            ever deployment of an Initial Defensive Operations capability,
            providing long-range surveillance and tracking. Within four
            years, 18 warships will be fitted with this transformational
            ballistic missile surveillance, tracking, and engagement
            capability, extending the defensive reach of naval forces deep
            over land.
      --Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)--Broad Area Maritime
            Surveillance (BAMS).--This year we awarded a contract to design
            and develop the Multi-Mission Aircraft to recapitalize our
            1950's-era Lockheed ``Electra''-based P-3 force. Our
            acquisition plan includes the integration of the Broad Area
            Maritime Surveillance--Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (BAMS-UAV)
            program into the overarching Maritime Patrol and Armed
            Reconnaissance requirement. This lethal combination of manned
            and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft will recapitalize our
            maritime patrol anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare
            and armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
            capability. We expect to reach Initial Operating Capability
            (IOC) of the MMA and BAMS UAV in 2013.
        FORCEnet is the operational construct and architectural framework
    for naval warfare in the joint, information age.

                                   Figure 15

        It will allow systems, functions and missions to be aligned in a
    way that will transform our situational awareness, accelerate speed of
    decisions and allow naval forces to greatly distribute its combat power
    in a unified, joint battlespace. FORCEnet provides the standards of
    interoperability for the world-class IT tools that we need to continue
    to be the world-class Navy.
        Programs that will enable the future force to be more networked,
    highly adaptive, human-centric, integrated, and enhance speed of
    command include:
      --Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI).--NMCI provides commercial IT
            services for more than 380,000 DON employees. This initiative,
            as part of our FORCEnet strategy, is providing a single, secure
            shore-based network and will link with our tactical networks to
            provide end-to-end collaboration within the DON and across the
            joint community. Fiscal year 2006 funding of $1.6 billion
            provides for NMCI operations and, at the same time, continues
            transition of the remaining legacy IT networks to NMCI
            enterprise network services.
      --Mobile User Objective System (MUOS).--The MUOS Satellite
            Communications (SATCOM) program will increase DOD Narrowband
            UHF SATCOM capacity by roughly 1,300 percent over current
            capabilities. MUOS is a $6 billion joint interest program, and
            it supports a particularly important ``Comms-on-the-Move''
            capability for handheld terminals, aircraft, missiles, and UAVs
            in urban and heavily wooded terrain. We plan to reach the
            Initial Operating Capability milestone in 2010, with Full
            Operational Capability in 2014.
      --Joint Aerial Common Sensor (JACS).--We have partnered with the Army
            in the Joint Aerial Common Sensor development program in our
            pursuit of a replacement for the aging EP-3 airborne
            information warfare and tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT)
            aircraft. JACS will provide multi-intelligence strike targeting
            data and Signals Intelligence capabilities, and will include a
            Synthetic Aperture Radar, Ground Moving Target Indicator,
            Electro-Optical and Infrared Sights, and Measurements and
            Signature capabilities. These will be coupled with automatic/
            manual data fusion. Our fiscal year 2006 request includes $134
            million for this program.
      --Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).--JTRS will be the wireless
            ``last tactical mile'' component of the Global Information Grid
            (GIG) ad will transform Navy's tactical communications systems
            by incorporating Internet Protocol (IP) communications over
            multi-spectral radio frequency (RF) media. JTRS is a software
            programmable, multi-band, multi-mode family of net-workable
            radios, capable of simultaneous voice, data, video
            communications and mobile ad hoc networking. Our fiscal year
            2006 request includes $251 million for JTRS.
      --Fire ScoutOur fiscal year 2006 request includes $77.6 million to
            continue the development of the Fire Scout UAV. The Fire Scout
            is a Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV) designed
            to operate from all air-capable ships, carry modular mission
            payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control System and
            Tactical Common Data Link. The Fire Scout UAV will provide day/
            night real time ISR and targeting as well as communication-
            relay and battlefield management capabilities for ASW, MIW and
            ASUW.
      --E-2 Advanced Hawkeye.--The E-2 Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) program will
            modernize the E-2 weapons system by replacing the current radar
            and other aircraft system components to improve nearly every
            facet of tactical air operations. The modernized weapons system
            will be designed to maintain open ocean capability while adding
            transformational littoral ocean surveillance and Theater Air
            Defense and Missile Defense capabilities against emerging
            threats in the high-clutter environment. The AHE program plans
            to build 75 new aircraft with the modernized weapons system
            with pilot production in fiscal year 2007.
    Continuing our efforts to become more effective and efficient in the
            use of taxpayer resources
        We are well underway in our Sea Enterprise journey to be more
    effective and efficient, yet more needs to be done to generate the
    resources necessary to implement our Sea Power 21 vision. We must
    provide incentives for innovation in the workplace, and implement tools
    and techniques that enable the workforce to challenge existing
    assumptions, eliminate unnecessary costs, and increase efficiency and
    effectiveness. Sharing best practices, and leveraging core competencies
    and continuous process improvement are essential ingredients to our
    success. The promise of increased effectiveness, productivity, and
    alignment can only be realized by extending both the extent and depth
    of collaboration across the enterprise.
        The DON Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) initiative has created
    the framework that will enable the transformation of key acquisition,
    logistics, and financial business activities into an integrated network
    of decision-making processes. This past August the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council approved the Navy ERP Operational Requirements
    Document (ORD) and cleared the way for the Navy to purchase ERP
    software and hire an integration contractor. With the fiscal year 2006
    budget, the Navy will continue to capitalize on demonstrated ERP
    technology advances in creating and disseminating decision-making
    information. The ERP program is expected to continue to improve
    integration, leverage economy-of-scale, consolidate legacy systems and
    software using the best business and commercial practices available and
    align the President's Management Agenda (PMA) within the Department. We
    are pursuing an acquisition strategy that will support operational test
    and evaluation by fiscal year 2006.
        Sea Enterprise efficiency/mitigation initiatives valued in excess
    of $50 billion across the FYDP. More importantly, however, Sea
    Enterprise offers a genuine understanding of program costs that
    empowers our Research and Development, enables our program execution,
    and enhances the overall management of our Navy. Accordingly there is
    increased relevance of our cost data and no built-in cost margins built
    into our budget. Put simply, our budget has the most granularity and
    cost refinement than in any time in my tenure as CNO. This sometimes
    translates into savings for our government but also means that
    unforeseen budget cuts directly affect the heart of our programs and
    not just marginal costs.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Our mission remains bringing the fight to our enemies. We will
    execute the Global War on Terror while continuing our transformation
    for the future. We have set in motion forces of change, beginning the
    journey that I believe we must undertake if we are to maintain the
    greatness that our 229 years of naval history has bestowed upon us. But
    change is demanding, difficult, and uncertain in its effects. It
    requires extraordinary effort, especially for a large, public
    institution. And it is precisely for these reasons that change must be
    harnessed as a positive force in our Navy.
        Positive change is the bridge to our future. To get there we must
    also think anew about the opportunities that we have now to make our
    Navy even better. Tomorrow's Navy will, in many ways, be strikingly
    dissimilar to our Navy today. But one thing is clear: the business of
    the Navy will always be combat, and victory is both our mission and our
    heritage. None of this would be possible 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 prepared to go in harm's way for our great nation, for all
    that you do to make the United States Navy ready today and prepared for
    the future.

        Senator Stevens. General Hagee, do you have a statement to
    make?
        General Hagee. Yes, sir, I do.

                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE

        General Hagee. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, other
    distinguished members of this subcommittee, it's my privilege
    to be here this morning to report on the readiness of your
    Marine Corps.
        I would, also, like to offer my thanks to Vern Clark. I
    think you know there has been no Chief of Naval Operations more
    committed to the Navy/Marine Corps team than Admiral Vern
    Clark. And I wish him all the best, and thank him for his
    friendship and for his professionalism.
        Sir, this past weekend, I was on Iwo Jima with some
    veterans from that particular battle. Just a little over 60
    years ago, on February 19, over 80,000 marines and sailors
    onboard over 880 U.S. ships made a landing on that small
    island. Thirty-six days later, the battle was over, over 25,000
    marines and sailors were wounded, 6,100 gave their lives. And,
    in those 36 days, 27 medals of honor were awarded.
        Mr. Chairman, today we are again at war--a different type
    of war, to be sure, but still a global war. And I can tell you
    that, in my 37 years as a marine, I have never seen a more
    experienced, battle-hardened, and ready force than today's
    Marine Corps. Your consistent fiscal and legislative support
    over the past few years have been critical in delivering the
    force needed today.
        I would also like to thank you personally for your caring
    visits to our wounded and for caring for the families of those
    who have lost loved ones. Your support is greatly appreciated
    by all marines and their families.
        Last year when I appeared before this subcommittee, I
    highlighted the importance of the flexibility and adaptability
    of your marines in rapidly responding to multiple and varied
    contingencies, many on short notice, since 9/11. Again, over
    the past year, the value of this expeditionary force and its
    readiness were demonstrated repeatedly in Iraq, Afghanistan,
    Horn of Africa, Haiti, and, of course, most recently, in the
    relief operations in the Indian Ocean.
        A notable example of the value of your marines' readiness,
    the quality of their training, their leadership, and their
    understanding of joint and coalition operations was in the Al
    Anbar province. In November of last year, the marine force,
    tightly integrated with Army brigades, Seabees, joint air
    assets, coalition forces, including five Iraqi battalions,
    mounted a high-intensity joint assault in a demanding urban
    environment, destroying the insurgents' safe-haven in Fallujah.
    This close-quarters fight against an adaptable and dangerous
    enemy was executed rapidly and successfully. Equally
    impressive, in my opinion, but not often noted, was, after the
    assault, the force immediately returned to counterinsurgency
    and civil-affairs operations.
        While your marines and their equipment have performed well,
    both at home and abroad, we do face some significant
    challenges. The tempo of operation and the demands on the
    forces are extremely high across the entire Marine Corps, both
    regular and reserve. Marine units and operating forces are
    either deployed or are training to relieve deployed units. No
    forces have been fenced. And since 9/11, we have activated in
    excess of 95 percent of our Marine Corps Reserve units, the
    majority of whom have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
        Last year, we met our recruiting and retention goals, both
    in quantity and, most importantly, in quality. Although we
    remain on track to meet our annual goals this year, the
    additional effort required by our recruiters and our career
    retention specialists is significant. Your continued support of
    recruit advertising and enlistment bonuses is important.
        The Marine Corps greatly appreciates Congress'
    authorization last year to increase end strength by 3,000
    marines. Additionally, we are implementing internal initiatives
    to provide more capabilities needed by the combatant commanders
    and to reduce our Operating Tempo (OPTEMPO). We have tremendous
    support from our families. This support sustains us both at
    home and when we are deployed in harm's way. They have my
    sincere gratitude for their courage and their sacrifice.
        With regard to our material and equipment, we currently
    have 30 percent of our ground equipment and 25 percent of our
    aviation equipment deployed in theater in one of the harshest
    operating environments on the planet. Usage rates for our
    ground equipment are averaging eight-to-one over planned rates,
    while our aviation assets are flying between two to three times
    their planned rates. Our fiscal year 2005 supplemental
    submission requests funds to begin the reconstitution of this
    equipment. Together, our fiscal year 2006 budget request and
    the supplemental will ensure that our essential warfighting
    capability and readiness remain high.
        The successes of our Armed Forces to date are a reflection
    of Congress' strong fiscal support over the past years. Our
    equipment, support facilities, and the personnel policies that
    attract, create, and keep our most lethal and effective
    weapon--high-quality marines--are the product of your long-term
    sustained investment.
        Joint seabasing is the Navy/Marine Corps team's overarching
    operating concept for using the sea as maneuver space. This
    transformational concept breaks down the traditional sea/land
    barrier. It will enable the joint force commander to project
    joint and combined forces anywhere in the world. Seabasing
    assures joint access by leveraging maneuver of forces on the
    sea and by reducing dependence upon fixed and vulnerable land
    bases. This concept will provide our combatant commanders with
    unprecedented versatility in operations, from cooperative
    security to major combat. In support of our transformation
    efforts, funding for seabasing research and development is
    critical in order to ensure timely design and doctrinal
    decisions.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, let me emphasize that your marines are fully
    dedicated to the idea of service to our Nation, and they know
    they have the solid backing of the Congress and the American
    people. We fully understand that our greatest contribution to
    the Nation is our high level of readiness to respond across the
    spectrum of operations. Marines and their families greatly
    appreciate your support in achieving our high level of success,
    and your efforts to ensure that we will be able to respond to
    future contingencies.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of General Michael W. Hagee

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
    Committee; it is my honor to report to you on the state of readiness of
    your Marine Corps. Today, we are at war and your Marines are performing
    well because of the support they have received from the Congress and
    their extraordinary courage, dedication, and commitment. Marines
    realize the danger to the Nation, their vital role, and the magnitude
    of their responsibilities. Many have been wounded or killed in action
    over the past year carrying out these responsibilities.
        Marines continue to demonstrate that we are an expeditionary force
    in readiness--Most Ready When the Nation is Least Ready. Your continued
    support has made this possible. The Global War on Terror will be long;
    therefore, sustaining and improving our readiness for future challenges
    is critical to ensuring that the Marine Corps continues to provide the
    combatant commanders the critical capabilities needed. On behalf of all
    Marines and their families, I thank this Committee for your sustained
    and indispensable support during these challenging times.

                    INTRODUCTION AND THE VALUE OF READINESS

        Currently, your Marines are fully engaged across the spectrum of
    military capabilities in prosecuting the Global War on Terror. Since
    the watershed events of September 11, 2001, the core competencies,
    capabilities, and emphasis on readiness that the Marine Corps has
    structured itself around over many years have repeatedly proven their
    value in the numerous and varied operations this conflict demands. The
    importance of our Nation's ability to project power and conduct
    military operations over long distances for extended periods of time as
    part of a joint force has been revalidated. The Marine Corps' role as
    the Nation's premier expeditionary force-in-readiness, combined with
    our forward deployed posture, has enabled us to rapidly and effectively
    contribute to these joint operations. Our scalable, combined arms
    teams, seamlessly integrating our robust ground and aviation forces
    with adaptive logistics, create speed, flexibility, and agility to
    effectively respond to each unique emerging situation. The high state
    of training and quality of our Marines along with our warrior ethos--
    highlighted by our creed that every Marine is a rifleman--allows
    Marines to thrive in the chaotic, unstable, and unpredictable
    environment that has always characterized warfare and that our very
    adaptable enemies methodically attempt to exploit.
        Previously I have highlighted to Congress that in the early phases
    of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, two forward-deployed Marine
    Expeditionary Units formed Task Force 58 and projected the first major
    conventional combat units into Afghanistan--more that 350 miles from
    its sea base of amphibious shipping. Operation IRAQI FREEDOM I
    witnessed the flexibility of our projection capabilities when a combat
    ready Marine Expeditionary Force of over 70,000 Marines and Sailors was
    deployed in less than 60 days by multiple means--forward deployed
    Marine Expeditionary Units, amphibious shipping embarked from stateside
    bases, Maritime Prepositioned Ships, the use of amphibious ships as
    sea-based aviation power projection platforms, as well as strategic air
    and sealift assets. The significant capabilities of this combined arms
    force--as it attacked more than 500 miles from its off-load areas in
    Kuwait, rendering ten Iraqi divisions combat ineffective, and seizing
    half of Baghdad as well as key areas to the north--were also
    demonstrated.
        During this past year, Marines have continued to demonstrate their
    readiness across the spectrum of required missions. Shortly after their
    return from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the Marine Corps received a short-
    notice tasking to deploy 25,000 Marines back to Iraq. Since March 2004,
    Marines have led the Multi-National-Force-West, responsible for
    stability and security in the Al Anbar Province in Iraq. Our
    expeditious and innovative pre-deployment combat skills training
    program, rapid modifications of our training and equipment to meet an
    evolving threat, and our emphasis on cultural and language capabilities
    properly prepared us for the challenges in this complex region. The I
    Marine Expeditionary Force, reinforced by three Marine Expeditionary
    Units, is currently executing multiple security, urban combat, nation
    building, counter-insurgency, aviation command and control, and force
    protection missions with great confidence and skill, in the face of an
    adaptable and dangerous enemy.
        In Afghanistan this past spring, in addition to the infantry
    battalion and helicopter support already supporting Operation ENDURING
    FREEDOM, we provided, on short-notice, a regimental headquarters and a
    combined arms Marine Expeditionary Unit. This Marine force was a major
    element of the combined joint task force assigned to counter a
    suspected Taliban ``Spring Offensive.'' The success of this force
    greatly assisted in setting the conditions for the Afghan national
    elections later in the year and in establishment of a secure and stable
    government. We continue to provide both ground and aviation forces--
    currently an infantry battalion, elements of two helicopter squadrons,
    and training teams--to protect and foster this new democracy.
        In addition to these operations, our concurrent support to other
    regions including the Horn of Africa, the Pacific, support to the
    evacuation of non-combatants from Liberia, and the unexpected peace
    operation in Haiti has demonstrated our great range of flexibility. As
    on numerous previous occasions, Marines were deeply involved in the
    recent humanitarian efforts in the wake of the Sumatran earthquake and
    Indian Ocean tsunami. The value of our readiness across the spectrum of
    military capability; our forward presence and security cooperation
    efforts in this region for years; and our significant planning,
    logistical and transportation capabilities from our robust sea-base
    platforms have again proven critical in the effective projection of
    America's power--this time our power of humanitarian assistance. We
    should not underestimate the importance of this humanitarian operation
    on the stability of this critical region nor its potential favorable
    impact on the Global War on Terror.
        Currently, we are conducting a major rotation of our units and
    headquarters in Iraq. Many of these units have previously deployed to
    this theater, but we continue to aggressively match our training and
    equipment to the changing threat. We expect our commitment to Iraq to
    remain at about 23,000 Marines and Sailors, with the Marine Corps
    reserve forces providing about 3,000 of these personnel into 2006.
        Your support has ensured our near-term readiness remains strong. We
    will need your continued support in order to retain this readiness into
    the future. The current demand on the force is high. The entire Marine
    Corps is supporting the Global War on Terror, and no forces have been
    fenced. In the past two years, we have gone from a deployment rotation
    of one-to-three (6 months out/18 months back) to our current one-to-one
    ratio (7 months out/7 months back) for our infantry battalions,
    aviation squadrons, and other, high demand capabilities. This means
    that Marine units in the operating forces are either deployed or are
    training to relieve deployed units. Since 9/11, we have activated in
    excess of 95 percent of our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units. The
    vast majority have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Despite this
    high operational tempo, the Marine Corps continues to meet its
    recruiting and retention goals in quantity and quality, but the effort
    required by individual recruiters and career retention specialists is
    significant. The Marine Corps greatly appreciates Congress'
    authorization to increase our end-strength by 3,000 Marines in the
    fiscal year 2005 Authorization Act. These additional Marines will
    assist in reducing demands on Marines by filling our battalions to
    their designed strengths. We are currently assessing whether a further
    increase of personnel beyond 178,000 will be required to meet long-term
    commitments in the Global War on Terror.
        Last year, we completed a force structure review to determine how
    we could better meet the operational needs of the Global War on Terror
    within our then approved end strength of 175,000. This effort,
    addressed in detail in the Personnel Readiness section below, will
    result in the creation of additional high demand units and capabilities
    to address pressures within the force.
        The significant increase in wear and tear on materiel--in addition
    to combat losses--is a considerable monetary challenge that we
    identified in our fiscal year 2005 Supplemental submission. This
    submission also includes our request for essential warfighting and
    force protection equipment. These funds are critical to our sustained
    readiness.
        Operations over these past few years have dramatically highlighted
    that our focus on readiness to fight across the spectrum of conflict is
    on the mark. Your continued support to fully fund our modernization and
    transformation accounts will ensure that Marine forces will be able to
    respond to the joint force commanders' requirements.

                              PERSONNEL READINESS

        The Marine Corps continues to answer the call because of our
    individual Marines and the support they receive from their families and
    from the Nation. Morale and commitment are high. Marines join the Corps
    to ``fight and win battles'' and we are certainly giving them the
    opportunity to do that. We are an expeditionary force accustomed to
    deployments, but never at such a high tempo.
    Marines
        End Strength.--The Marine Corps greatly appreciates the
    congressional end strength increase to 178,000. Our first priority for
    this increase is to enhance the manning of our infantry units. We will
    also create dedicated foreign military training units and add to our
    recruiting force, our trainers, and other support for the operating
    forces. Coupled with initiatives implemented as part of the recent
    force structure review and our military to civilian conversions, we
    will place many more Marines in our operating forces to reduce the
    tempo of operations on Marines and their families.
        Force Structure Review.--The Marine Corps--recognizing the need to
    continue transformation and the rebalancing of forces to meet the needs
    of the 21st century and the long-term Global War on Terror--completed a
    review of our total force structure, active and reserve, last year. We
    are implementing the recommended force structure initiatives with the
    majority achieving initial operational capability in fiscal year 2006
    and full operational capability by fiscal year 2008. These initiatives
    are end strength and structure neutral--offsets to balance these
    increases in capabilities are internal to the Marine Corps and come
    from military to civilian conversions and the disestablishment and
    reorganization of less critical capabilities. Implementation of these
    initiatives will require additional equipment, facilities, and
    operations and maintenance resources. The Marine Corps will continue to
    evaluate our force structure to ensure that it provides the needed
    capabilities in a timely manner to support our national security
    requirements.
        Major structure changes in the active component include the
    establishment of two additional infantry battalions, three light
    armored reconnaissance companies, three reconnaissance companies, two
    force reconnaissance platoons, and an additional Air-Naval Gunfire
    Liaison Company (ANGLICO). We will also augment our existing explosive
    ordnance disposal, intelligence, aviation support, civil affairs,
    command and control, and psychological operations assets.
        In the reserve component these structure initiatives will increase
    the capability of Marine Forces Reserve Command to better respond to
    the Global War on Terror. We will establish an intelligence support
    battalion, a security/anti-terrorism battalion, and two additional
    light armored reconnaissance companies. We will also augment existing
    capabilities in the areas of civil affairs and command and control, and
    we are restructuring some reserve units to convert them into Individual
    Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Detachments--allowing more timely access
    to these Marine reservists to support contingency operations.
        Military to Civilian Conversions.--The Marine Corps continues to
    pursue sensible military to civilian conversions in order to increase
    the number of Marines in the operating force. In fiscal year 2004, the
    Marine Corps converted 664 billets. We plan to continue our program for
    conversions, and we are on course to achieve 2,397 conversions through
    September 2006.
        Retention.--The primary concern with increased personnel and
    operational tempo is its long-term impact on the career force,
    especially the officers and the staff non-commissioned officers who
    have between 8 and 12 years of service. The end-strength increase,
    implementation of our force structure initiatives, and Military-
    Civilian conversions are expected to partially mitigate the negative
    effects of this high tempo on the individual Marine and the force.
    Strong retention is a complex function of leadership opportunities,
    sense of purpose, compensation, quality of life, and educational
    opportunities.
        Enlisted Retention. We are a young force. Maintaining a continuous
    flow of quality new accessions is of fundamental importance to well-
    balanced readiness. Over 26,000 of our active duty enlisted Marines are
    still teenagers, and 104,000 are serving on their first enlistment. In
    fiscal year 2004, the Marine Corps achieved 100 percent of our goals
    for both first term and career (second reenlistment and beyond) active
    duty reenlistments. Selected Reserve enlisted retention for fiscal year
    2004 was slightly above our historical norm. In fiscal year 2005, we
    are again off to a strong start in all categories. We will continue to
    monitor this area closely. Although the Selective Reenlistment Bonus
    represents just one-half of one percent of our military personnel
    budget, it remains a powerful retention tool, and we take pride in our
    prudent stewardship of this resource. This year it will play an even
    more important role in retaining our best Marines as we maintain an end
    strength of 178,000. These reenlisted Noncommissioned and Staff
    Noncommissioned Officers will form the core of our new units.
        Officer Retention. Overall, we continue to achieve our goals for
    officer retention. We are retaining experienced and high quality
    officers. Our aggregate officer retention rate was 91 percent for
    fiscal year 2004, at our historical average. Reserve officer retention
    of 75 percent is slightly below the historical norm of 77 percent. It
    is important to note that high retention in the active component
    reduces the number of officers transitioning (accessions) into the
    Selected Marine Corps Reserve.
        Recruiting.--A successful retention effort is but one part of
    ensuring there is a properly trained Marine in the right place at the
    right time. Successful recruiting is essential to replenishing the
    force and maintaining a high state of readiness. In fiscal year 2004,
    the Marine Corps recruited 100 percent of its active component goal of
    30,608 Marines, with 97.7 percent being Tier I High School graduates.
    The Marine Corps Reserve also achieved 100 percent of its recruiting
    goals with the accession of 6,165 Non-Prior Service Marines and 2,083
    prior-service Marines. Officer accessions, in both the active and
    reserve components, achieved their goals, but reserve officer numbers
    remain challenging because our primary accession source is officers
    leaving active duty. We are currently exploring new options in this
    area and believe that the authority for a Selected Reserve Officer
    Affiliation Bonus in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense
    Authorization Act may contribute significantly to these efforts. For
    fiscal year 2005, both active and reserve recruiting are challenging,
    but we are currently on track to meet our goals.
        We believe the recruiting and retention ``marketplace'' is going to
    become more challenging. Your continued support for a strong
    reenlistment bonus and advertising programs will be essential to meet
    this challenge.
        Marine Corps Reserve.--The morale and patriotic spirit of the
    Marine Reserves, their families, and their employers remains
    extraordinarily high. As demonstrated over this past year, the Marine
    Corps Reserve continues to be fully ready and capable of rapid
    activation and deployment to augment and reinforce the active component
    of the Marine Corps as required. This capability has helped us to avoid
    untimely deployment extensions, maximize force management of our
    reserves, maintain unit integrity, sustain the reserve force, and
    lessen the burden on Marines and their families. To date almost 30,000
    Reserve Marines have served on active duty in the Global War On Terror.
    Currently, over 13,000 reserve Marines are on active duty with over
    11,500 in cohesive reserve ground, aviation and combat support units
    and almost 1,600 serving as individual augments in both Marine and
    Joint commands. As of January 2005, the Marine Corps Reserve began
    activating 3,000 Selected Marine Corps Reserve Marines in support of
    operations in Iraq and 500 for Afghanistan.
        Despite the high tempo of operations, the Marine Corps Reserve
    continues to meet its goals for recruiting and retaining quality men
    and women willing to manage commitments to their families, their
    communities, their civilian careers, and the Corps. The Marine Corps is
    closely monitoring post-mobilization retention in order to assess any
    potential long-term negative impact from recent activations. As we
    build on the lessons of the recent past and begin to implement
    adjustments to the structure of our reserve forces, we will ensure that
    these changes are made with full recognition that the Marine Corps
    Reserve is a community-based force.
        Marine For Life.--Initiated in fiscal year 2002, the Marine For
    Life program continues to provide support for 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. Assistance from
    career retention specialists and transitional recruiters helps
    transitioning Marines tremendously by getting the word out about the
    program.
        Marine For Life--Injured Support.--Leveraging the organizational
    network and strengths of the Marine for Life program, we are currently
    implementing an Injured Support program to assist injured Marines,
    Sailors serving with Marines, and their families. The goal is to bridge
    the gap between military medical care and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs--providing continuity of support through transition and
    assistance for several years afterwards. Planned features of the
    program include: advocacy for Marines, Sailors and their families
    within the Marine Corps and with external agencies; pre and post-
    Service separation case management; assistance in working with physical
    evaluation boards; an interactive web site for disability/benefit
    information; an enhanced Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) ``One
    Source'' capability for 24/7/365 information; facilitation assistance
    with federal hiring preferences; coordination with veterans, public,
    and private organizations providing support to our seriously injured;
    improved Department of Veterans Affairs handling of Marine cases; and
    development of any required proposals for legislative changes to better
    support our Marines and Sailors. This program began limited operations
    in early January 2005.
    Civilian Marines
        Marine Corps Civilian Workforce Campaign Plan.--Marines, more than
    ever before, recognize the importance of our civilian teammates and the
    invaluable service they provide to our Corps as an integral component
    of the Total Force. To that end we continue to mature and execute our
    Civilian Workforce Campaign Plan, a strategic road map to achieve a
    civilian workforce capable of meeting the challenges of the future. We
    are committed to building leadership skills at all levels, providing
    interesting and challenging training and career opportunities, and
    improving the quality of work life for all appropriated and non-
    appropriated Civilian Marines. As part of our effort to meet our goal
    of accessing and retaining a select group of civilians imbued with our
    Core Values, we have developed a program to provide our Civilian
    Marines an opportunity to learn about the Marine Corps' ethos, history,
    and Core Values--to properly acculturate them to this special
    institution. All this supports our value proposition, why a civilian
    chooses to pursue a job with the Marine Corps: to ``Support Our
    Marines. Be Part of the Team.''
        National Security Personnel System.--The Marine Corps is actively
    participating with the Department of Defense in the development and
    implementation of the new personnel system. Following an intensive
    training program for supervisors, managers, human resources
    specialists, employees, commanders and senior management, we will join
    with the Department in the first phase of implementation, tentatively
    scheduled for July of 2005. In the Marine Corps, we will lead from the
    top and have our Headquarters Marine Corps civilian personnel included
    in the first phase of implementation, known as ``Spiral One.''
        Information Technology.--We remain committed to transforming our
    manpower processes by leveraging the unique capabilities resident in
    the Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS), our fully integrated
    personnel, pay, and manpower system that serves active, reserve and
    retired members. The integrated nature of MCTFS allows us to develop
    our Total Force Administration System (TFAS); a web based and virtually
    paperless administration system that provides Marines and commanders
    24-hour access to administrative processes via Marine OnLine. Our TFAS
    allows administrative personnel to refocus their efforts from routine
    tasks to more complex analytical duties, and ultimately will enable
    greater efficiencies. Additionally, MCTFS facilitates our single source
    of manpower data, directly feeding our Operational Data Store
    Enterprise and Total Force Data Warehouse. This distinctive capability
    allows us to accurately forecast manpower trends and fuels our Manpower
    Performance Indicators, which provide near real time graphical
    representation of the Corps' manpower status such as our deployment
    tempo. Properly managing our manpower requirements and processes
    requires continued investment in modern technologies and we are
    committed to these prudent investments.
    Quality of Life
        Marine Corps Community Services.--Taking care of Marines and their
    families is essential to the operational readiness of the Corps. The
    relevance of this mission is particularly evident when leaders at all
    levels assess preparedness of their command and unit functioning
    before, during, and after forward deployments. As an expeditionary
    force we are accustomed to frequent deployments, yet the current
    environment contains elements of personal danger and family risk that
    must be addressed with appropriate and timely support. To date in
    Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM, we have been careful to
    closely monitor our programs and adjust support 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 our
    lifestyle and current operational tempo.
        Deployment Support.--During pre-deployment, Marines and families
    attend to wills, powers of attorney, and family care plans; and spouses
    establish a vital connection through the commander's Key Volunteer
    Network that is organized to provide accurate and timely information on
    the status of the deployment. We have developed a series of pre-
    deployment, in-theater, return and reunion, and post deployment
    awareness and support services to mitigate problems created by
    traumatic combat experiences and their associated stress. We fully
    understand that Marines and their families are not immune from social
    risks such as suicide, domestic violence, or sexual assault. We also
    understand that risk factors can be exacerbated by the current
    operational tempo, and we have a variety of proactive counseling
    services to address individual and unit readiness concerns. We are ever
    watchful for symptoms and risks of untreated combat stress and its
    signs and advise Marines of the resources available for treatment.
    Combat stress is also addressed with counseling provided by the Navy's
    Operational Stress Control and Readiness Program (OSCAR), which embeds
    mental health professionals within the Marine Division and has resulted
    in a marked decrease in medical evacuations for mental health reasons.
    Prior to departing a combat zone, we also plan for a decompression
    period in which military chaplains provide a Warrior Transition Brief
    focused on better preparing our Marines to reintegrate with family and
    community. We offer similar return and reunion programs for families
    awaiting the homecoming of a deployed Marine. A wide array of services
    is available at our installations through chaplains, medical treatment
    facilities, and MCCS to support the Marine and family members in the
    post deployment phase. For those Marines and families in need who are
    residing a distance from our installations, face-to-face counseling
    services are available through MCCS/Military One Source. MCCS/Military
    One Source offers 24/7/365 information and referral services via toll-
    free telephone and Internet access. MCCS/Military One Source has also
    proven to be an especially valuable resource to assist Reserve Marines
    and their families who often experience special challenges when trying
    to acclimate to requirements, procedures, and support associated with
    various military programs and benefits.
        We recognize that family readiness is integral to unit readiness.
    To help our families through the separation and stress of deployment,
    respite and extended childcare services have been made possible by
    Congress in supplemental appropriations. Information and referral
    services are offered via different access points such as unit/command
    websites, hotlines and MCCS/Military One Source. While forward
    deployed, Marines have access to tactical field exchanges; a variety of
    fitness, recreation, and leisure facilities; and telecommunication
    services. We are utilizing our postal Marines to expedite mail
    delivery. We also conducted a successful voter awareness campaign that
    ensured our Marines had the opportunity to exercise their right and
    civic responsibility to vote, even from austere, forward deployed
    locations.
        Casualty Assistance.--The Marine Corps, and most importantly Marine
    families, appreciate recent legislative actions, including the expanded
    authorizations for parents of our deceased to attend funerals when they
    are not the primary next-of-kin, and also the enhanced travel to
    bedside benefits that are so important to the morale of those Marines
    subject to extended hospital stays. We have built internal support
    services, including an extensive network of Casualty Assistance Calls
    Officers (CACOs) throughout the country who serve as the primary point
    of contact for the families of deceased and severely injured Marines
    regarding all military benefits, entitlements, or offers from
    benevolent organizations. CACO support is managed through our
    Headquarters Casualty Affairs section and has been enhanced by the
    development and implementation of an Office of the Secretary of
    Defense-funded Injured/Ill Patient Tracking website in March of 2004.
    Commanders at all levels now have visibility of their Marines at all
    stages in the medical and convalescence process.
        I would like to thank Congress for your continued support of the
    programs and services so critical to the readiness of our Corps, to
    include provisions of supplemental appropriations; all of which
    directly contribute to quality of life enhancements. Also, your kind
    and caring visits with our wounded Marines, Sailors, and their families
    are greatly appreciated.

                             TRAINING AND EDUCATION

        The Marine Corps' Training and Education Command continues to
    incorporate lessons learned from the Global War on Terror, ensuring
    that Marines are fully trained and prepared to meet the challenges of
    the demanding operational environments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around
    the world. In many respects, the hard won lessons from these most
    recent battlefields have served to validate our training policies and
    programs. The training at the recruit depots continues to deliver basic
    trained Marines, imbued with the core values and warrior ethos
    necessary to ensure their rapid integration into operational units. In
    particular, our fundamental tenet, ``Every Marine a Rifleman,'' has
    proven its worth time and again. Marines in almost every occupational
    field have executed the tasks of provisional riflemen, from
    establishing security to patrolling their areas of responsibility. In a
    conflict where nearly every convoy is a combat patrol, the fact that
    all Marines are taught basic combat and infantry skills at the Schools
    of Infantry has helped ensure their survival and mission accomplishment
    in an environment where traditional lines between the front and the
    rear are virtually indistinct.
        Adapting to a Thinking Foe.--Where needed, we have adjusted the
    curricula at formal schools to ensure that Marines are trained using
    the latest lessons learned. Our enemies are constantly adapting, and we
    must ensure that our training reflects the modifications to tactics,
    techniques, and procedures that are necessary to counter these changes.
    Our schools maintain close communication with the operating forces
    through the review of after-action reports, lessons-learned data,
    surveys, and personal interviews with returning Marines. For example,
    classes in Improvised Explosive Device awareness, reaction to vehicle
    ambush, and combat leadership discussions with returning combat
    veterans have been integrated into appropriate programs of instruction.
    In addition, new infantry lieutenants receive enhanced training in
    urban patrolling, and their 96-hour final field exercise encompasses
    both conventional operations and stability and support operations.
    Military Occupational Specialty schools are also adjusting their
    curricula to ensure that we adapt our focus from fighting a
    conventional force to dealing with the challenges posed by irregular
    forces. For example, at our intelligence schools, counter-insurgency
    training has been added to the curriculum, illustrating changes in the
    collection procedures necessary for greater effectiveness in an
    insurgency environment. We are weaving cultural training throughout the
    training continuum to reinforce the understanding of the operational
    importance of culture and to help Marines more effectively interact
    with civilian populations.
        Focused Pre-Deployment Training.--To focus training efforts, all
    deploying Marine units rotate through a standardized training package.
    Building on home station training in basic urban skills, ground units
    deploy to the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Center at
    Twentynine Palms, California, for in-depth training in convoy
    operations, fire support, and small-unit coordinated assaults against
    defended positions. Following that, the units move to March Air Reserve
    Base at Riverside, California, for a graduate-level training exercise
    in urban operations, including stability and support operations. In
    addition, ground units scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan train at the
    Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center at Bridgeport,
    California. Here they focus on gaining the skills necessary to operate
    in demanding high-altitude environments like they will experience in
    Afghanistan. Marine Corps aviation units participate in a standardized
    training package, Desert Talon, in Yuma, Arizona. All of these training
    events are solidly grounded on lessons learned from the operating
    forces.
        Initiatives for Future Challenges.--While we adjust to the current
    operational environment, we also keep our eye on the future. We are
    currently undertaking initiatives that will further strengthen the
    training and education that Marines receive in years to come. One key
    initiative is the development of Military Occupational Specialty
    Roadmaps to help individual Marines and leaders map out career paths.
    Complementing this effort, we are conducting a complete reevaluation of
    our entire professional military education program to ensure that it
    seamlessly reinforces our Military Occupational Specialty training as
    well as ensuring, at the appropriate levels, a strong bond with joint
    professional military education. In the joint arena, we are also
    heavily engaged in supporting the Department of Defense efforts to
    create a flexible and dynamic Joint National Training Capability. In
    this respect, and thanks to the generous support of Congress, we are
    making large infrastructure investments at our Combat Training Center
    at Twentynine Palms, California. We are in the process of building a
    number of urban warfare training facilities on this base that will
    allow us to conduct battalion and company-sized urban warfare training,
    further enhancing the combat ability of Marine units. All these efforts
    will ensure the continued ability of the Marine Corps to respond
    whenever and wherever the Nation calls.

                        EQUIPMENT AND MATERIEL READINESS

        Our readiness priority is the support and sustainment of our
    forward deployed forces. Currently, the Marine Corps has 26 percent of
    our active operating forces deployed in support of the Global War on
    Terror utilizing 30 percent of our ground equipment and 25 percent of
    our aviation assets.
        Demand on Equipment.--The Global War on Terror equipment usage
    rates average 8:1 over normal peacetime usage due to continuous combat
    operations. This high usage rate in a harsh operating environment,
    coupled with the added weight of armor and unavoidable delays of
    scheduled maintenance due to combat, is degrading our equipment at an
    accelerated rate. More than 1,800 principal end items valued at $94.3
    million have been destroyed. Repairs on 2,300 damaged end items will
    require additional depot maintenance.
        Readiness Rates.--The equipment readiness (mission capable) rates
    of our deployed forces average 95 percent for ground equipment and 72
    percent for aviation units. Our pre-positioned stocks, within both the
    Marine Corps Preposition Program--Norway and Maritime Prepositioned
    Shipping--have ensured the sustained readiness of our deployed ground
    units. In order to improve our readiness rate in theater, we are
    creating a limited aircraft depot maintenance capability, coordinating
    with the Army to leverage their ground depot maintenance capability,
    and establishing a pool of ground equipment to expedite the replacement
    of damaged major end items. The corresponding equipment readiness
    (mission capable) rates for units remaining in garrison are 81 percent
    for ground equipment and 69 percent for aviation units. We currently
    are rebalancing the ground equipment assets of our non-deployed units
    to maximize equipment availability for unit training. We anticipate a
    reduction in the size of our force deployed to Iraq in the Operation
    IRAQI FREEDOM 04-06 rotation and plan to return the associated
    equipment to the non-deployed operating forces. Due to the extensive
    wear and tear on our assets, we believe that at some point in the
    future we will need to replace equipment because restoring it to like-
    new condition may not be cost effective. We will need your continued
    support in order to recapitalize and reconstitute our prepositioned
    stocks and to replace our combat losses. We have requested $250 million
    via the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental to begin replacing our
    prepositioned equipment.
        Meeting Urgent Operational Requirements.--A critical factor for
    both Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM in ensuring our
    Marines were as adequately equipped as possible is the Urgent Universal
    Needs Statement (UUNS) process that we initiated in 2002. This process
    has provided a way for the leaders and members of our operating forces
    to identify and forward new requirements for weapons and gear up the
    chain of command for quick review and approval -most in under 90 days.
    Upon approval by the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council, the
    Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy have realigned funds as
    necessary within permitted reprogramming thresholds. When required by
    reprogramming authority rules, we have forwarded requests that exceed
    the established reprogramming thresholds to the Congress for approval.
    The sources for these reprogramming actions have been our investment
    account assets. In many cases, the funding was made available by our
    decision to accept risk and defer the full execution of otherwise
    approved programs in order to address immediate warfighting needs.
    Through this process we have acquired more than 200,000 pieces of
    essential warfighting equipment that have been provided to the
    operational commanders. Some examples are:
      --Vehicle hardening: Purchased factory produced and field expedient
            armor for nearly 4,000 vehicles; fielded 37 export model M1114
            up-armored High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles
            (HMMWV); will procure and field 498 M1114s up-armored HMMWVs;
            and producing the Marine Armor Kit (MAK) for HMMWVs and the
            Marine Armor System (MAS) for the Medium Tactical Vehicle
            Replacement (installation for both systems will be
            operationally driven and is planned to begin between February
            and May 2005).
      --Numerous types of weapons sights: Advanced Combat Optic Gunsights
            (ACOG); and thermal Weapons Sights
      --Family of Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) equipment including
            unmanned robotics and blast suits
      --Counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Jammers
      --Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)--Dragon Eye and Scan Eagle
      --Hardened Engineer Vehicles--Cougar and Buffalo systems being
            acquired from the U.S. Army
      --Radios: Personal Role Radios, PRC-148, PRC-117F, and Tropo
            Satellite Support Radios
      --Unit Operations Centers
      --Night Vision Devices
      --Dust abatement chemicals and sprayer systems
      --Individual body armor
      --Backscatter X-Ray machines
      --Blue Force Tracker.
        The Marine Corps, with superb assistance from the Department of the
    Navy, realigned funds and received supplemental funding to fund these
    acquisitions. The impact of the reprogramming was deferred deliveries
    or delays in the execution of other approved procurement programs.
    Affected Marine Corps programs include personal gear and weaponry,
    vehicles, command and control systems, communications, and tactical
    computers at a cost to the Marine Corps of over $300 million.
    Similarly, Marine Corps initiatives within the Navy budget affected by
    reprogramming included ships, naval weapons systems and aircraft
    replacements/modifications that Marines man or that directly support
    us. The funding required to buy back some of these critical
    capabilities is included in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental request.
        Replacements and Depot Maintenance.--Our equipment replacement
    strategies support our long-term commitment and considerations for new
    item modernization or transformation opportunities whenever possible.
    Use of the Marine Corps depot maintenance capability has been optimized
    using our organic depots, other service depots, and commercial
    sources--in that order. For our depots, we have requested $319 million
    in fiscal year 2005, which includes the baseline programmed
    appropriation of $114 million, an approved Congressional increase of
    $43 million, and our request for an additional $162 million in
    supplemental funding.

                                FUTURE READINESS

        While the primary focus of the Marine Corps is supporting the
    Global War on Terror, we also have a responsibility to prepare for
    future conflicts and contingencies. Our continued transformation
    recognizes that an array of non-traditional threats will increasingly
    influence our development of tomorrow's Corps. Our challenge is to
    determine the right balance of capabilities that the Marine Corps must
    provide to the Nation in order to help defeat a broad range of
    adversaries. The review of our force structure, referred to earlier, is
    an example of how we are adapting to better prosecute the Global War on
    Terror and meet future national security requirements.
        Logistics Modernization.--Logistics Modernization is the most
    comprehensive approach ever to improving tactical and operational level
    logistics. It is a Marine Corps-wide, multi-year, people-focused
    program designed to improve processes and technology supporting Marine
    Air Ground Task Force operations. Logistics Modernization consists of
    seven initiatives that--when fully implemented--will; modernize our
    people through logistics chain-oriented education and effective change
    management and communications; will modernize processes through moving
    to a logistics chain management approach that integrates supply,
    maintenance and distribution; and will modernize technology through
    acquisition and fielding of Global Combat Support System Marine Corps
    (GCSS-MC). Logistics Modernization initiatives will address Operation
    Iraqi Freedom lessons through their laser focus on the deployed
    environment and the last tactical mile and increase Marine Air Ground
    Task Force lethality by providing increased accuracy, reliability, and
    responsiveness of logistics information to Marines deployed on the
    battlefield.
        Power Projection and Sustainable Forcible Entry Capability.--
    Whatever the future brings, we believe that the Nation will continue to
    require the capability to project and sustain joint power from the sea,
    despite adversaries' attempts to deny us access. The Navy-Marine Corps
    team--with the immediate capabilities of our forward deployed forces,
    the rapid deployment of medium weight forces, and the full spectrum
    capability for major combat operations--provides our joint force
    commanders with flexible options to meet a wide range of potential
    circumstances. As we look into the future, the requirements for naval
    forces to maintain presence, engage allies and potential coalition
    partners, build understanding and operational relationships for the
    future, relentlessly pursue terrorist organizations, and project
    sustainable forces ashore for a wide variety of operations will only
    increase. We must continue to improve our ability to use the sea and
    our maritime superiority in order to gain access, to reinforce and
    defend allies, aid victims of catastrophic disaster, or defeat
    aggressors.
        As an element of our joint power projection capability, forcible
    entry is a core competency that the Navy-Marine Corps team provides to
    joint force commanders. Our ability to use the sea as maneuver space,
    to provide us with overwhelming strategic mobility, and to protect us
    from the majority of challengers must remain one of our asymmetric
    advantages. It ensures that any adversary must devote considerable
    resources and time in attempting to deal with our unique ability to
    hold the length and depth of his coastline at risk, while he considers
    his military--even political--options. As we increase our investment in
    non-traditional capabilities, we will continue to transform the means
    by which the Nation projects offensive, defensive, sustainment, and
    command and control capabilities from the freedom of the high seas.
        Amphibious and Maritime Preposition Force Capability.--To this end,
    amphibious and maritime prepositioned force capabilities remain the
    critical factors necessary to fully realize this essential warfighting
    capability for the Nation. Naval forces must maintain the ability to
    rapidly close, effectively employ, and sustain a persistent military
    force from the sea, thereby willfully projecting power ashore. The
    Marine Corps warfighting requirement for forcible entry amphibious
    shipping remains the ability to lift the assault echelon of three
    Marine Expeditionary Brigades, fiscally constrained to 2.5. In
    addition, our proven maritime prepositioned ships--capable of
    supporting the rapid deployment of three Marine Expeditionary Brigades
    are an important complement to our 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.
        Seabasing Concept.--Seabasing is our overarching operating concept
    for using the sea as maneuver space. This transformational concept
    breaks down the traditional sea-land barrier. It will enable us to
    project naval, joint, and combined forces anywhere in the world.
    Recognized as a key future joint military capability, Seabasing assures
    joint access by leveraging the operational maneuver of forces on 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. A Department of the Navy requirements study planned for this
    year will identify the necessary naval capabilities and requirements
    for Seabasing--particularly with regard to amphibious and pre-
    positioned shipping, connectors, fires, and other necessary support. We
    are also leading the development of a Seabasing Joint Integrating
    Concept to better consider opportunities and options for each of the
    Services to exploit our command of the sea.
    Programs
        The following is a summary of programs to achieve these concepts,
    requirements and capabilities:
        Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)).--The MPF(F) will
    be a key enabler for sea-based operations. It will allow us to better
    exploit the sea as maneuver space to conduct joint operations at a time
    and place of our choosing. MPF(F) will enable four new capabilities:
    (1) at-sea arrival and assembly; (2) direct support of the assault
    echelon of the amphibious task force; (3) long-term, sea-based
    sustainment; and (4) at-sea reconstitution and redeployment. These
    capabilities will be invaluable in supporting forward engagement,
    presence, and relationship building operations with allies and
    potential coalition partners by our forward deployed forces as well as
    through support to disaster relief and humanitarian operations. During
    the combat phases of a joint campaign, these platforms as element of
    the seabase will deliver and support the rapid reinforcement by a
    single Marine Expeditionary Brigade as well as key support to the
    Marine Expedition Force and elements of the joint force from the sea.
    Additionally, these flexible assets can remain in support of post-
    conflict activities and forces from a relatively secure location at
    sea. The specific ship mix and number of Maritime Prepositioning Force
    (Future) ships are yet to be determined, but the final mix will be
    capable of prepositioning critical equipment and 20 days of supplies
    for our future Marine Expeditionary Brigades in each Maritime
    Prepositioning Squadron.
        Landing Platform 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. The lead ship was
    successfully launched in July 2003 and production efforts are focused
    on meeting test milestones for a summer 2005 delivery. 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 40-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 rapidly
    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.
        Landing Helicopter Assault (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 the Navy's investment in aviation,
    ships with enhanced aviation capabilities will replace the remaining
    LHAs. The LHA(R) will support requirements in the larger context of
    Joint Seabasing, power projection, and the Global War On Terror. The
    first ship, LHA(R) Flight Zero, is a transitional ship to the
    succeeding ships in the class that will be transformational in
    capability and design--interoperable with future sea-basing ships and
    platforms that will better support and take advantage of our investment
    in the MV-22 and Joint Strike Fighter. This lead ship is currently in
    the capabilities development stage of the acquisition process with
    advanced procurement funds provided in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
        High Speed Connectors.--The Joint High Speed Vessel will address
    Combatant Commanders' requirements for a forward deployed rapid force
    closure capability. Army, Marine Corps and Navy programs were recently
    merged into a Navy-led program office with an acquisition strategy
    intended to leverage current commercial fast ferry technology. We are
    pursuing an aggressive research and development effort to enhance our
    capability to conduct ship-to-ship transfers of personnel and
    equipment. Capitalizing on lessons learned in recent operations, United
    States European Command's Exercise AFRICAN LION 05 is being planned to
    explore the capability of high speed connectors to facilitate
    reception, staging, onward movement and integration of forces. To meet
    the Combatant Commanders' high-speed intra theater lift requirements,
    we are investigating ways to continue leases of foreign-built vessels
    until U.S.-built ships are available. HSC-2 Swift and Westpac Express
    enabled the Third Marine Expeditionary Force to expand training and
    engagement in the western Pacific while increasing training time. They
    are currently being used in support of tsunami relief operations in the
    Indian Ocean. HSC-2 Swift provides a research and development test bed
    and serves as an operational platform in support of contingency
    response requirements. Contract awards for new vessels are expected in
    fiscal year 2008 with delivery in 2010.
        MV-22 Osprey.--The MV-22 remains the Marine Corps' number one
    aviation acquisition priority. The Osprey's increased range, speed,
    payload, and survivability will generate transformational tactical and
    operational capabilities. The superior mobility of the MV-22 allows the
    sea-based force to bypass enemy strengths and anti-access measures,
    attack vulnerabilities, and contribute substantially to the operational
    agility necessary to establish advantages of dominant maneuver. Ospreys
    will replace our aging fleets of CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea
    Stallion helicopters beginning in fiscal year 2007 and provide both
    strategic and tactical flexibility to meet emerging threats in the
    Global War on Terror. Utilization rates far above peacetime rates and
    the physical demands of continuous operations in the harsh conditions
    of Iraq and Afghanistan are accelerating the deterioration of aircraft
    and increasing operating costs. The combination of these factors makes
    a timely fielding of the MV-22 necessary.
        Short Take Off Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighter (STOVL JSF).--
    The STOVL JSF will be a single engine, stealthy, supersonic, strike-
    fighter capable of short take-offs and vertical landings. The aircraft
    was designed to replace the current F/A-18 and AV-8B with an affordable
    platform that optimizes Marine Corps Tactical Aircraft (TacAir)
    missions through improved survivability, lethal precision engagement
    capability, and supportable expeditionary operations. The STOVL
    aircraft is capable of operating from amphibious ships, aircraft
    carriers, and austere sites. It is designed to survive in the future
    battlespace because of a reduced radio frequency and infrared
    signature, on-board sensing and countermeasures, and agile combat
    maneuverability. Able to perform offensive air support, destruction of
    enemy air defense, armed reconnaissance, and control of aircraft and
    missiles missions, the Joint Strike Fighter will counter existing and
    emerging threat systems at extended ranges providing a highly
    effective, flexible, responsive capability.
        H-1 (AH-1Z/UH-1Y).--The current fleet of AH-1W attack helicopters
    and UH-1N utility helicopters continue to perform superbly in the
    Global War on Terror. High demand for their capabilities in a harsh
    environment is highlighting known deficiencies of these aging
    helicopters--particularly with regard to crew and passenger
    survivability, payload lift, power availability, endurance, range,
    airspeed, maneuverability, and supportability. The Department of the
    Navy determined that the H-1 Upgrade Program is the most cost-effective
    alternative for the Marine Corps' attack and utility helicopter
    requirements. The H-1 Upgrade Program is a key modernization effort
    designed to resolve existing safety deficiencies, enhance operational
    effectiveness of both the AH-1W and the UH-1N, and extend the service
    life of both aircraft. Additionally, the commonality gained between the
    AH-1Z and UH-1Y (84 percent) will significantly reduce life-cycle costs
    and logistical footprint, while increasing the maintainability and
    deployability of both aircraft. In October 2003, the program entered
    initial low-rate production. A follow-on low-rate production commenced
    in February 2005, and Operational and Evaluation testing is planned to
    begin in July 2005. Due to aircraft attrition in operations supporting
    the Global War on Terror, we are pursuing funding for a ``build-new''
    strategy for additional AH-1Z and UH-1Y aircraft, in order to prevent
    inventory shortfalls that would be unacceptable in light of current and
    expected operational commitments. We appreciate the subcommittee's
    support by approving our request to reprogram non-recurring engineering
    funding of the UH-1Y Build-new program.
        Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR).--The HLR will replace our aging fleet
    of CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters to fulfill the Marine Corps'
    vertical heavy lift requirement. The aircraft will provide required
    capabilities, not resident in any other platform, to insert and sustain
    a credible sea-based force. The HRL will transport 27,000 pounds to
    distances of 110 nautical miles under most environmental conditions.
    Its payloads will include armored combat vehicles or two armored High
    Mobility Multi Wheeled Vehicles per sortie. To sustain the force, the
    HLR will transport three independent loads tailored to individual
    receiving unit requirements and provide the critical logistics air
    connector to facilitate sea-based power projection operations. This
    reliable, cost-effective heavy lift capability will address critical
    challenges in maintainability, reliability, and affordability found in
    present-day operations supporting the Global War on Terror.
        Vertical Unmanned Air Vehicles (VUAV).--Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV)
    have played a critical role in recent operations, and they are also a
    key element of our transformation. We are pursing the replacement of
    our almost 20-year old Pioneer UAV systems--which are currently flying
    at almost ten times the normal peacetime rate--with the Eagle Eye tilt-
    rotor VUAV beginning in fiscal year 2009. The Eagle Eye platform is
    being developed by the Coast Guard, and spiral development of the
    program will achieve the speed, range, payload, survivability,
    reliability, interoperability, and supportability required by our
    Marines well into the future. Our intended procurement of a common Air
    Force, Army, and Marine Corps UAV ground control station will enhance
    cost efficiency and interoperability of the system.
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.--The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
    (EFV), our priority ground program, will provide Marine surface assault
    elements the operational and tactical mobility to exploit fleeting
    opportunities in the fluid operational environment of the future.
    Designed to launch from amphibious ships from over the horizon, the EFV
    will be capable of carrying a reinforced Marine rifle squad at speeds
    in excess of 20 nautical miles per hour in a significant wave height of
    three feet. This capability will reduce the vulnerability of our naval
    forces to enemy threats by keeping them well out to sea while providing
    our surface assault forces mounted in EFVs the mobility to react to and
    exploit gaps in enemy defenses ashore. Once ashore, EFVs will provide
    Marine maneuver units with an armored personnel carrier designed to
    meet the threats of the future. With its high-speed land and water
    maneuverability, highly lethal day/night fighting ability, enhanced
    communications capability, advanced armor and nuclear, biological, and
    chemical collective protection, the EFV will significantly enhance the
    lethality and survivability of Marine maneuver units and provide the
    Marine Air Ground Task Force and Expeditionary Strike Group with
    increased operational tempo across the spectrum of operations.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2010, the EFV will replace the aging Assault
    Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) that has been in service since 1972.
        Ground Indirect Fires.--As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have
    demonstrated--and suggest for the future--the increased range and speed
    of expeditionary forces and the depth of their influence landward has
    increased and will continue to do so. In addition, the complementary
    capabilities of surface- and air-delivered fires continue to be
    highlighted in ongoing combat operations in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM
    and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. The importance of both precision and
    volume fires is critical to the lethality and survivability of Marine
    forces. Precision fires assist in reducing both collateral damage and
    the demands on tactical logistics. Marine combat forces continue to
    validate the requirement for volume fires in support of maneuver
    warfare tactics. These fires allow maneuver forces to take advantage of
    maneuver warfare opportunities before precision intelligence can be
    developed and precision fires can be employed against fleeting targets
    or rapidly developing enemy defensive postures. The Marine Corps will
    address the need for complementary fire support capabilities through
    procurement of a triad of ground-based indirect fire support systems,
    and support for acquisition of Naval aviation and surface fire support
    capabilities.
        The new M777A1 lightweight howitzer completed operational testing
    in November 2004. It will replace M198 howitzers in the Marine Corps,
    as well as the M198s in Army Airborne, Light Units, and Stryker Brigade
    Combat Teams. The howitzer can be lifted by the MV-22 and CH-53E
    helicopters and is paired with the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement
    truck in the Marine Corps 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.
    Delivery to the Marine Corps of low rate initial production howitzers
    began in December 2004. A full rate production decision is expected in
    February 2005, and full operational capability in the Marine Corps is
    planned for fiscal year 2009.
        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, General Support, General
    Support-Reinforcing, and Reinforcing indirect precision and volume
    fires throughout all phases of combat operations ashore. HIMARS will be
    fielded to one artillery battalion of the active component and one
    battalion of the Reserve component. An interim capability of one
    battery is planned during fiscal years 2005-2006. An initial
    operational capability is planned for fiscal year 2007 with a full
    capability expected during fiscal year 2008.
        The Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) is the third element
    of the triad of indirect fire support systems. It will be the principal
    indirect fire support system for the vertical assault element of a
    Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable). The EFSS is a
    towed 120 mm mortar paired with an Internally Transported 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 2008.
        DD(X) Land Attack Destroyer.--The DD(X) Land Attack Destroyer will
    provide both precision and volume fires to supported ground forces
    ashore. The planned 155 millimeter Advanced Gun System (2 per ship)
    will provide increased firepower range and lethality over currently
    available naval guns through its associated Long Range Land Attack
    Projectile. This combination of gun and projectile will enable target
    engagement up to 83 nautical miles from the ship with precision
    accuracy. Each ship will be designed to carry 600 long range land
    attack projectiles. Additionally, long-range strike options are
    provided through use of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles from the ship's
    Peripheral Vertical Launch Systems. The DD(X) will provide Marine and
    joint force commanders with an immediately responsive, sustainable,
    lethal fire support capability at ranges in support of current and
    future operating concepts. Initial operational capability is planned
    for fiscal year 2013.
    Initiatives
        The following key initiatives will increase our flexibility and
    required warfighting capabilities:
        USMC/US Special Operations Command Initiatives.--Ongoing operations
    in support of the Global War on Terror highlight the interdependence in
    the battlespace between Marine Corps operating forces and Special
    Operation Forces. Initiatives directed at improving the manner in which
    the Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) operate
    together fall into three broad categories: people, equipment, and
    training. The Marine Corps and USSOCOM continue to assess current and
    future personnel exchanges to enhance respective warfighting
    capabilities. Recently, the Marine Corps initiated formation of three
    Foreign Military Training Units to assist USSOCOM with this critical
    military cooperation mission. Compatibility of equipment is another key
    ingredient to our successful relationship. A number of collaborative
    efforts, from the Internally Transportable Vehicle to the MV-22,
    demonstrate the commitment to compatibility and efficiencies gained
    through joint acquisition. Lastly, we continue to improve our
    relationship through pre-deployment training, which materially
    contributes to battlefield success. Despite current operations tempo,
    our forces are making great strides.
        Tactical Air Integration Initiative.--Naval Tactical Aircraft
    (TacAir) Integration is a program that allows all Naval Strike-Fighter
    aircraft to meet both Services' warfighting and training requirements.
    Marine Fighter-Attack squadrons are deploying with carrier air wings
    aboard aircraft carriers, and Navy Strike-Fighter squadrons are being
    assigned to the Marine Corps' Unit Deployment Program for land-based
    deployments. Force structure reductions associated with this plan and
    the fielding of the Joint Strike Fighter should result in a total cost
    savings and cost avoidance of over $30 billion.
        TacAir Integration retains our warfighting potential and brings the
    Naval Services a step closer to the flexible sea based force satisfying
    all Global War on Terror, Global Naval Force Presence Posture, and
    Operation Plan requirements. A leaner, more efficient Naval fighter/
    attack force is possible through ``Global Sourcing''--the ability to
    task any Department of the Navy squadron to either Service's mission.
    This concept is enabled by maintaining a ``Level Readiness'' posture
    through alignment of resources to operational and training
    requirements.
        Experimentation.--Rigorous experimentation, assessment, and
    analysis are the primary mechanism for fostering innovation.
    Experimentation is vital to provide valuable information that
    determines the extent that concepts and force development strategies
    need revision. The Marine Corps works closely with our sister Services
    and the Joint Forces Command in fostering the creation of new concepts,
    refining them in the experimentation crucible, and aligning the efforts
    of Combatant Commanders, Services, interagency, multi-national, and
    industry partners. We believe experimentation is the foundation for all
    new joint concept recommendations.
        The Marine Corps Combat Development Command has realigned its
    experimentation program around the Sea Viking Campaign. The insights
    gathered from Sea Viking are essential in determining potential joint
    force capabilities required for the conduct of forcible entry
    operations from a sea base. Our experimentation efforts will continue
    as we explore new and emerging technologies to address the interface
    challenges of transferring personnel and equipment utilizing sea base
    connectors and maritime prepositioned ships. In addition, the Marine
    Corps continues to conduct vital experimentation with non-lethal
    weapons due to the nature of conflict and its proximity to non-
    combatants. Although lethal force is necessary to wage successful war,
    we have learned that it is not always appropriate for winning the
    peace. As we field these important new tools for operating in adverse
    environments where combatants and non-combatants are often
    intermingled, we are also assessing new options that will assist us in
    accomplishing our mission while minimizing unnecessary loss of life,
    injury, and damage to property. Research and vital experimentation
    continue as we evaluate new technologies to refine our capability
    needs.
        Sea Swap.--Sea Swap is a concept for gaining efficiencies in
    forward deployed naval forces. The concept extends ship deployment to
    12 to 24 months, while rotating crews and embarked personnel on shorter
    periods, generally 6 months. Deployed forces increase on-station
    forward presence by reducing steaming time from homeport to fleet
    operating areas. The Marine Corps is committed to developing and
    testing the Sea Swap concept. While current operational tempo precludes
    us from dedicating a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Sea Swap
    experimentation in the near future, we are continuing analytical work
    in conjunction with the Navy to thoroughly examine the concept to
    identify benefits and risks. As our operational tempo normalizes, we
    anticipate developing a phased training approach that will experiment
    with elements of the concept that apply to a Marine Expeditionary Unit.
        Expeditionary Strike Groups.--The Navy-Marine Corps team has
    completed deployments of several Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) to
    the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The ESG combines the
    capabilities of surface combatants, a submarine, and a tethered
    maritime patrol aircraft with those of an Amphibious Ready Group and
    Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) to provide
    greater combat capabilities to regional combatant commanders. Current
    operations have precluded us from conducting further testing to make
    key decisions about doctrine, organization, training, and leadership.
    Future proof of concept deployments will assist us in determining the
    way ahead for the ESG.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Marine Corps continues to make wise use of constrained
    resources in operating and maintaining its infrastructure. This is
    being accomplished by balancing new construction with demolition of
    inadequate or unsafe facilities, use of sustainment metrics in
    maintaining the structures we have, reduction in energy consumption,
    and use of better business practices. Long term planning is also being
    used to ensure our installations evolve and transition in step with our
    operating forces. The end state of these on-going efforts is support of
    combat ready Marines and their families.
    Corps Better Business Practices
        Marine Corps Business Enterprise.--The Business Enterprise Office
    is charged with the mission of improving the Corps' business practices.
    The recently approved Business Enterprise Strategic Plan is designed to
    guide end-to-end assessment and improvement of Marine Corps business
    processes through fiscal year 2012. It incorporates regionalization,
    competition, divestiture, elimination of low-value activities and
    services, continuous process improvement, and investment in training
    our Civilian Marine workforce to facilitate transforming the Marine
    Corps into a performance based organization in support of the
    warfighter. The plan establishes a savings goal for the Program
    Objective Memorandum 2008 period that culminates in $200 million annual
    savings across all business processes and frees 1,700 Marines for
    reassignment to warfighting requirements.
        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. Our goal is to
    position our installations to be more effective and consistent
    providers of support to the warfighter and will use the Marine Corps
    Business Enterprise and other initiatives to do so. Our regions will
    reach initial operational capability during fiscal year 2005 and full
    operational capability during fiscal year 2006.
        Public Private Venture.--Efforts to improve housing for Marines and
    their families continue. Thanks to Congressional action last year that
    eliminated the budgetary authority cap on Public Private Venture
    investments in military family housing, the Marine Corps remains on
    track to meet the Strategic Planning Guidance goal to eliminate
    inadequate housing by 2007.
        Force Structure Review Initiative Facility Requirements.--
    Implementation of the approved force structure review initiatives
    includes facilities construction requirements to support rapid and
    significant force structure changes. New force structure that must be
    supported includes infantry, reconnaissance and intelligence units in
    the active component, and reconnaissance, anti-terrorism, and an
    intelligence unit in the reserves. Your support for the acquisition of
    facilities needed to support the standup of these units is appreciated.
        Encroachment.--The Marine Corps has been successful in using the
    land-space buffering tool Congress provided the armed services in 2003
    to protect areas in proximity to military lands from incompatible
    development. We are participating in conservation forums with land
    conservators, city and county planners, and open land advocates in
    communities where our training ranges are located. One of the goals is
    to preserve open space and endangered species habitat in those areas as
    well as deter potential incompatible development near our
    installations. These projects are ongoing at most of our installations.
        Last year's Defense Authorization Act also amended the Endangered
    Species Act to allow the Secretary of the Interior to accept Integrated
    Natural Resources Management Plans as suitable substitutes for critical
    habitat designation. The Marine Corps is using this legislation to
    protect and enhance populations of these species while continuing to
    conduct essential training.

                                     SAFETY

        Effective safety programs are vital to force protection and
    operational readiness. Marine leaders understand the importance of
    leadership, education, and accountability in the effort to reduce
    mishaps and accidents. As a result of actions taken and programs
    implemented, fiscal year 2004 mishap fatalities were driven downward
    from the previous fiscal year. Operational mishap fatalities during the
    same period were also significantly reduced. Although Aviation mishaps
    trended upward during fiscal year 2004, Marine Aviation is working
    myriad initiatives to improve our aviation safety performance this
    fiscal year. Additionally, we saw a reduction in mishap fatalities
    (fatalities not resulting from enemy action) in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM
    II from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM I. Our leadership is energized at every
    level. From the Executive Safety Board's leadership initiatives, to the
    introduction of mentorship programs at the unit level and driver's
    improvement in recruit training, we are actively involved in the effort
    to safeguard our most precious assets--our Marines and Sailors.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, let me emphasize that your Marines, as shown in
    recent battles like Fallujah, are courageous and fully dedicated to
    whatever sacrifice is required to protect this Nation. Their bravery,
    sacrifice, and commitment to warfighting excellence have added new
    chapters to our Corps' rich legacy. Your Marines recognize they have an
    essential mission. They know that they are well equipped, well led,
    well trained, and 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.
    With your continued support, we will ensure that your Marines, their
    equipment, their training, and our organization are ready for any
    potential contingency. Marines and their families greatly appreciate
    the unwavering support of Congress in achieving our high level of
    success.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General, Admiral, Mr.
    Secretary.
        We've heard some interesting testimony so far this year.
    I'll not forget the photograph we had of the young Army person,
    who had parachuted into Iraq, carrying, on his back, more than
    I weigh. And we think we're dealing with just an enormously
    capable generation of volunteers, who are just doing this
    magnificent job, that they certainly will go down in history as
    being the most--really, the greatest generation. There's only
    five of us left in this Senate from World War II days. None of
    us could have carried that load. Days are different now, and we
    congratulate you very much for what you're doing, all of you,
    with the military.

                                  SHIPBUILDING

        Admiral Clark, as I indicated, at least I, and I'm sure my
    co-chairman, feel that we're sort of in a box now with
    shipping. Some of our colleagues want to have a process called
    advanced appropriations, and increase advanced appropriations,
    but then tie that down only for shipping for the future. It's
    sort of like preplanning the budget. I understand what you say
    about needing some assistance to develop a new concept. I wish
    we could have war bonds and have people buy them and understand
    they're putting up money to refurbish the military, and let us
    pay them off over a period of years. That might work. But these
    advanced appropriations worry me. Is this a--is this something
    that you have suggested, Admiral?
        Admiral Clark. Mr. Chairman, in the 5 years that I've been
    here, I've brought several different proposals forward to try
    to move ahead in this area, but the common--of all the
    features--and I believe that we have to look at a combination
    of features--of all the features that I believe will be
    beneficial is a level-funding approach. I do not believe that
    advanced appropriations, viewed as some sort of a short-term
    windfall, is the answer to our problem. In fact, because, when
    we fully fund a ship today, we spend just a very small
    percentage of that money in the first year of the program--
    between 6 and 10 percent we might spend in the first year--some
    people have viewed advanced appropriations as a windfall. But
    that will not work.
        It is going to take a combination of features. And that's
    why I talked, in my opening testimony, about multi-year
    contracts and aggressive use of R&D. I believe advanced
    appropriations could play a role, but that alone will not solve
    the problem.

                              SHIP FORCE STRUCTURE

        Senator Stevens. As you look at the force now, how many
    ships do you have, compared to how many you had when you became
    CNO?
        Admiral Clark. I have, this morning, 290 ships, and I had
    about 310--I'd have to validate the number, but about 310 when
    I got here. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, you can count me
    guilty for accelerating the decommissioning of some of the
    older ships that, in my view, were no longer providing the kind
    of capability that we needed, and that we need to redirect
    those resources to the future. I recommended that to the
    Secretary. He bought my proposal. And let me tell you how
    painful that is. Next week, I'm going to go down and
    decommission the class leader of the Spruance class--and I
    commanded it. You know, this is personal.
        But my view was that it no longer did the kind of things we
    need for our ships to do. And so, I took out the whole class,
    31 of them, early, with the whole idea to redirect those
    resources.
        And I would like just to be on record that this Department
    has worked aggressively to try to run this Department in the
    most effective and efficient way. My Secretary taught me to say
    ``effective first, and efficiencies would follow.'' There are
    over $50 billion worth of cost avoidance and savings in this
    FYDP that has been submitted by the Navy Department.
        We're doing everything we can to redirect, but, when it
    shows you the spiraling, accelerating costs in programs--as
    numbers fall down, we're not keeping up. And so, now, today,
    when I buy an aircraft carrier, and I have to pay for it all in
    1 year or 2 years, it takes an incredible divot out of the rest
    of my structure, and it's having an extraordinarily negative
    impact on our financial posture.

                             U.S.S. JOHN F. KENNEDY

        Senator Stevens. Well, Mr. Secretary, what's it going to
    take to change this around? Let me first ask, Are you going to
    be terribly disturbed if we tell you to keep the Kennedy where
    it is?
        Secretary England. Yes, sir, we would be terribly disturbed
    to keep the Kennedy where it is. First of all, the money is out
    for the Kennedy; it's not in our budget. So if we have to keep
    the Kennedy, then something else has to go. So we don't have
    the money in the budget for the Kennedy. It's gone. It's $1.2
    billion. The Kennedy is, by the time it comes--it's in an
    overhaul right now. It'll be 40 years old. And it's an old 40
    years old; it's never been through a major upgrade. It was a
    reserve carrier. So we've always had expense and issues keeping
    the Kennedy properly maintained, frankly. So it's expensive for
    us, and it's of marginal capability.
        As the CNO said, our carriers today are at least four times
    more capable than they were during Desert Storm. We're about to
    double this capability by 2010. Frankly, it's probably even
    more than that. At a minimum, I would say, that's the
    capability. As we bring on new airplanes, more precision
    weapons, and our new carriers, which have even more sortie
    rates when the CVN-21 and that class comes along--frankly, we
    do not need this carrier. And we have talked in past years
    about how many carriers did we need. We've actually thought,
    prior to this year, about taking out a carrier.
        So we fully support taking out the Kennedy. And, Mr.
    Chairman, if we're required to keep the Kennedy, then we're
    going to have to take money out of someplace else, because we
    do not have the money to keep the Kennedy.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I don't want to say this wrong. Once
    I said on the floor that I was half Scots and--one of my
    friends in the House said, ``That Senator just went out and
    admitted he was half full of Scotch.'' I am half Scots. So
    you've just paid for this overhaul. If I did that to my car, at
    least I'd keep it for awhile.
        Secretary England. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Why did we have an overhaul on this and
    then want to pull it out of service when it comes out of
    overhaul?
        Admiral Clark. No, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, we have not--it
    is scheduled for an overhaul. That is, it is scheduled now to
    be down until late 2007. We are not going to do that overhaul.
    And the fact is, this week we plan to redirect that money to
    other ships that need maintenance in the Department of the
    Navy.
        Senator Stevens. I beg your pardon. I was informed it was
    in overhaul. It's not in overhaul now?
        Secretary England. No, sir, it's not. It is scheduled to go
    into overhaul. So we will not do that.
        Senator Stevens. How much useful life does it still have?
        Secretary England. Well, typically we keep our carriers
    about 50 years. When it comes out of overhaul, it'll be 40
    years old, so it'll have about 10 years of life when--if we
    were to go into overhaul and keep the Kennedy, by the time it
    came out of overhaul it would have about 10 years of useful
    life.
        Admiral Clark. Can I piggyback on that, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Stevens. One more answer. Just tell me this. We're
    both from the Pacific. Aren't we losing our carrier for the
    Pacific when you have the rest of them over there involved in
    the war against terrorism?
        Secretary England. No, sir. When we look at the war plans,
    and when we look at what we anticipate in the Quadrennial
    Defense Review (QDR) with 11 carriers, we can meet the
    Combatant Commander (COCOM) requirements. And, frankly, it
    looks like we can do that as long as, you know, we can project
    into the future. That's the maximum size force we need.
        I will tell you, it's not evident to me that it'll always
    stay at 11. As this capability increases, it's quite possible,
    frankly, the number of carriers could go down, because we will
    go to other type ships that utilize our short takeoff and
    vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft capability, smaller decks--
    Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement (LHA(R)), for example; it
    will carry a lot of STOVL airplanes, which also give us
    striking power. So I think, in the future, you're going to see
    a different mix of capability, and you're probably talking the
    top side of our carrier force at 11.
        Senator Stevens. I cut you off, Admiral. Did you have
    something to say?
        Admiral Clark. Just to say that we are designing our
    nuclear carriers to live for 50 years, but they have an
    entirely different maintenance structure than we had when we
    put the JFK in commission. And we did not do a midlife Service
    Life Extension Program on the Kennedy. So 50 years would be a
    great stretch for that platform. It was not designed to be 50
    years when we built it. And so, 40 years would be--and what we
    have already, 37 years of utilization out of this platform, is
    in the ballpark for what we envisioned we would get when we
    built the ship. Today, our standards are higher, and we're
    seeking to get more utility out of the investment.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I'll come back again.
        Senator Inouye?

                                  BATTLESHIPS

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I don't suppose you
    anticipated this question. Four battleships were built after
    World War II. They served in Korea and Vietnam. And beginning
    in 1981, they were reconditioned and refurbished. They carried
    cruise missiles and electronic equipment. Some of my colleagues
    suggest that these ships should continue to be utilized. On the
    other hand, we have naval experts who suggest that they have
    exceeded their useful service life.
        With that thought in mind, we've heard some suggest that
    perhaps we need to bring them out of mothball to provide
    gunfire support for our forces going ashore. Do you have any
    views on that?
        Secretary England. Senator, I will tell you that that is
    absolutely not the plan of the Department of the Navy. And I
    would think that would be a huge mistake, to bring those ships
    out of mothballs. They would be hugely expensive, difficult to
    maintain, to train crews in both the maintenance and the
    operation. It would take a long time and, frankly, have very,
    very little utility. I think, just the opposite, we're trying
    to move into a new future, and not to hold onto the past from
    World War II. So I would tell you, in the strongest possible
    terms, that that would be a great mistake. And, by the way,
    those funds would be diverted from other ships we need to build
    and airplanes we need to build and marines we need to deploy.
        So, Senator, I would definitely not support that. I would
    think that would be harmful to the Department of the Navy. And
    I'd like to have the CNO comment, also.
        Admiral Clark. Senator, please don't let anybody do that.
        There is legislation that requires me to keep those
    battleships in a standby status. I support taking them out of
    that status.
        Here's what we know about the battleship. Extraordinarily
    costly to operate. A gun system that shoots a big round, but
    doesn't have the accuracy to even come close to dealing with
    the kind of precision warfare that we're talking about today.
    One Next Generation Destroyer (DD(X)) will put all of those
    battleships--would put 'em in the dust. And the reason is
    exactly the same kind of logic with using the Joint Direct
    Attack Munition (JDAM) in airplanes today. We know that we sent
    airplanes after a single bridge in Vietnam for months and
    months and months, and they never got it. And one JDAM would
    take it out, just like that.
        Today's world is so different with the precision effects
    that I do not need those battleships. They have cost a fortune,
    and they will not produce the kind of warfighting effect.
        Senator Inouye. I've heard your message.
        When you testified just a few moments ago, you said that
    the capability of our carriers has increased four times. Can
    you describe that?
        Admiral Clark. Well, we're talking now about precision and
    the weapons that we carry and the effects. And so, 10 years
    ago, when we were conducting operations in Desert Storm, the
    world, for the first time, saw precision elements going down
    smokestacks and so forth. And the Navy had a little bit of that
    capability, but now we are totally a precision force. And the
    force multiplication effect of that has increased our
    warfighting capability and combat effects by four times in the
    striking force. And what I'm saying is, we're going to double
    it again in the next 4 to 5 years. That's how rapidly we are
    moving toward the kind of improvements that change the face of
    warfare.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.

                            MARINE CORPS RECRUITING

        General Hagee, for the first time in nearly 10 years, the
    Marine Corps has missed its recruiting target. I believe you
    missed it for the last 2 months. What initiatives are underway
    to get recruiting back on track?
        General Hagee. Senator, thank you for that question. We did
    miss our contracting monthly goal for December and January. We
    continue to ship--actually, we're ahead of schedule on shipping
    individuals to boot camp. And we're just about on the annual
    goal to make mission for this fiscal year.
        So, I'm a golfer. Not a very good golfer, but a golfer. And
    in December and January, we shot a bogey--two bogeys. But we
    shot several birdies before that. So we're just about at par
    right now, as far as our annual goal is concerned.
        But, as I said in my opening remarks, it is a tough
    environment out there. And it's--as I have testified before,
    it's primarily because parents are asking more questions now,
    and our recruiters are spending more time with the parents
    answering their questions before they're willing to advise
    their son or daughter to come in the Armed Forces. So we are
    putting more recruiters out on the street, and we are spending
    more time with the parents.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions,
    but I believe I have to go to the floor now.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, Senator. I do appreciate the fact
    that you have duty there. And I hope you'll come back when
    you're finished.
        Senator Inouye. I'll be back.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski, you're recognized for 7
    minutes.
        Senator Mikulski. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
    testimony and these very candid answers to the questions.

                               BLOODSWORTH ISLAND

        I would like to begin with, first, a local question
    directed to Secretary England, and then perhaps Admiral Clark
    would like to answer it, and then go on to some questions about
    protecting our troops, our service people.
        Early in March, out of the blue, the Navy, at Pax River,
    announced that they were going to start doing military
    exercises on Bloodsworth Island, an island in the Chesapeake
    Bay. And they talked about flying, using bombs, using live
    ammunition, amphibious landings. And there was a sense that it
    was going to be like a Guadalcanal operation. The community is
    very concerned.
        All of you have been in Maryland--you've gone to school in
    Maryland, you know our resources, and you know we're Navy
    supporters. On the Chesapeake Bay, we have commercial shipping
    lanes, our famous watermen, and recreational boating. The
    community is really concerned, not about supporting the need
    for robust training, but the concern about safety with live
    ammunition, the disruption to lives, and the threat to
    livelihoods in the famous and fabulous Chesapeake Bay.
        Secretary England. Senator, first of all, my apologies.
    Obviously, there are a lot of misconceptions, and we obviously
    didn't handle that very well. And I'll ask the CNO to give you
    the detail. But we're not going to do any of those things on
    Bloodsworth Island. So I think that just got out of hand. I
    apologize. And I'll let the CNO, who had a lot of detail
    discussions last night, give you the specifics on that. But
    we're not going to have amphibious assaults and drop bombs and
    all those things on Bloodsworth Island. So I'll let the CNO
    give you more detail.
        Admiral Clark. It's a real privilege to be able to pass
    along this answer to you, Senator. First of all, the event is
    fundamentally a nonevent. Here's what happened. It turns out
    that Bloodsworth wasn't under the control of Naval Air Systems
    Command (NAVAIR) when they did its rounds of compliance and
    environmental assessments that were required under law in the
    late 1990s. And so, it came to their attention that in order to
    comply with the law, we have to go back and do an environmental
    assessment on property that we own.
        Senator Mikulski. That's right, and Senator Sarbanes has
    called for an environmental impact statement.
        Admiral Clark. Okay. And so, that's what this is. And in
    the context of conducting this assessment, they put, in the
    list of things to assess, all of the activity that had ever
    happened in the past.
        Now, let me make it real clear. There are no plans for any
    kind of increased operations on Bloodsworth.
        Senator Mikulski. So you don't intend to bomb it?
        Admiral Clark. No. That's correct.
        Senator Mikulski. You don't intend to land on it with live
    ammunition?
        Admiral Clark. There are no plans, and there will be no
    changes in the operational status of Bloodsworth.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that's going to be great news to
    the community.
        Admiral Clark. Is that clear?
        Senator Mikulski. Admiral, I think that's very clear. I
    know that the Navy has scheduled a variety of public hearings
    or public information sessions. At the first public information
    hearing, they had a lot of little tables, as if they were going
    to give counseling services. I'm not being sarcastic here.
    Again, we appreciate this conversation. I really think that,
    for the other sessions that are scheduled around Dorchester
    County--remember, they fought off the British; they don't want
    to get into it with you--that there should really be a true
    public information hearing about what's called for. Because
    from accounts in the newspaper that I'm sure your very able
    staff has brought to your attention, it really sounded over the
    top for an exercise in the Bay.
        Admiral Clark. We were exercising in accordance with the
    rules that we have to do to conduct an electronic attack (EA).
    What we have been doing there is conducting non-ground impact
    operations, radar evaluations, those kinds of things.
        Senator Mikulski. No, no, we know that you've got to use
    it, and we want you to use it.
        Admiral Clark. I have no plans to change that.
        Senator Mikulski. But, Admiral, I would like to bring to
    your attention the Sun paper articles, so you know what the
    people are hearing, so then they can go back and do a better
    job of communicating.
        Admiral Clark. Understood.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Secretary England. Our apologies, Senator. We didn't want--
    you know, obviously we didn't want that to get that far out of
    the line, and sorry we got to that point. But, hopefully, just
    this hearing will clarify that, and hopefully the press will
    report that there is no change at Bloodsworth Island.

                        PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR MARINES

        Senator Mikulski. Well, this, then, comes back to the fact
    that we do need to have training for our military. And, of
    course, we need to protect our military so they can protect us.
    In your testimony--this, then, goes to what both the marines
    and the Navy need to protect the sailors, protect the marines--
    in your testimonies, you outlined a variety of techniques that
    you're using to protect them, from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
    (UAVs), these robots--could you share with me, number one, what
    you think are working, are there new things you would like to
    try, and do you have enough money to buy the equipment that you
    need to protect them--from technology to tourniquets--while
    they're carrying out the missions that we ask them, to perform?
        General Hagee. Senator, it's a very complex battlefield,
    both in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there's not one technology,
    there's not one tactic or one procedure that will guarantee
    success. It's really the combination of all of those.
        First off, on the money, I can tell you, thanks to the
    Secretary of the Navy, money has not been an issue. He has told
    us that, ``If you need the money, you've got it. If you find
    something that will work, either technologically or there's a
    tactic or a procedure, and it requires funding, don't worry
    about funding.'' So over the past 2 years, we have not. And we
    have not put a marine vehicle out in harm's way that did not
    have some armor on it. And over the past 1\1/2\ years we have
    continually improved the armor. In fact, right now we are
    putting on what we call a marine armor kit, a MAK. In many
    ways, it's actually better than the 1114, which is the factory-
    built up-armored Humvee. By this summer, we will have all of
    our Humvees armored in that way. We have designed, and are
    putting on, a similar set of armor on our 7-ton trucks.
        Every marine, obviously, is wearing the Small Arms
    Protective Inserts (SAPI) plates and the flak vests. They are
    also wearing the new helmets. They're wearing eye-protective
    goggles. They have hearing devices that we have improved. The
    protection of our individual serviceman and our individual
    servicewoman is the highest priority that we have.
        Senator Mikulski. But I also presume you're doing R&D. This
    must weigh a lot. A ton weighs more than a ton if you're
    putting it on a Humvee or you're carrying it on your back.
        General Hagee. Yes, ma'am. We are doing R&D. And, as two of
    the members have mentioned, the weight is significant. We're
    doing a great deal of research with the United States Army on
    how to bring that weight down and provide at least as good, if
    not better, protection.
        Secretary England. Pardon me. Senator, also----
        Senator Stevens. The Senator's time has expired.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we'd like to hear more about that.
        Thank you very much.
        Secretary England. We'll get back with you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, the Navy and Marine Corps
    provide essential pillars of our national security today, and I
    commend the outstanding job being done every day by our sailors
    and marines. The Marine Corps, particularly, has taken on some
    of the toughest tasks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the results
    have been very impressive. So, I'm glad to be here today to
    thank you for your leadership of the Navy/Marine Corps team.

                                  SHIPBUILDING

        As we look at the budget request for shipbuilding, in
    particular, there are some things that stand out to me, and
    that is that it's going to be very difficult for our
    shipbuilding industry to continue to maintain its capabilities
    and an expertise that we've come to depend upon, and probably
    take for granted. But to continue to maintain the capabilities
    of our shipbuilding facilities, we're going to have to provide
    a shipbuilding budget that permits these yards to carry on.
        Some of us think that we need to have a competitive
    environment, that yards in Maine and Mississippi right now are
    building the larger ships for the Navy and Marine Corps, and
    forgetting about the aircraft carriers for the time being, but
    talking about surface combatants. We hope to be able to
    continue to see that level of competition maintained. And
    there's some concern about that.
        My colleague, this morning, Senator Lott, is introducing
    legislation which would express the sense of Congress that we
    continue to maintain shipyards that can compete for these
    contracts. And that's a big challenge.
        I wonder if, this morning, you could give us any insight
    into how you see that capability being sustained with the
    shipbuilding budget request that's contained in the budget that
    you're here to defend this morning.
        Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary England. Senator, thanks for the opportunity to
    discuss this, because this is a critical question for the Navy
    and for our industrial base.
        First, I need to comment that, frankly, we have very little
    competition in the shipbuilding industry. I mean, we basically
    allocate our ships. We have certain yards, and they do certain
    ships, and that's where we are. And so, we do not have
    competition today, frankly. We allocate our ships, and most of
    our yards do one kind of ship. The only case where that's not
    the case is in Maine and down in Mississippi. Mississippi does
    a variety of ships. Maine does one type of ship, which is the
    destroyer.
        Our budget is down this year. I mean, last year we had a $9
    billion shipbuilding budget. This year, it's down to about $6.5
    billion. It goes back to $9 billion next year, and then
    continues to grow. And that's more than it was throughout the
    whole 1990s. And we have 40 ships, 38 under contract and 2 more
    about to be under contract, in the backlog. So there is a
    healthy backlog in the industrial base right now. And this
    year, as I said, was a planned down year, as we move into new
    capability.

                                     DD(X)

        I believe there's only one real issue in the industrial
    base, and that issue involves the DD(X). The DD(X) is the
    replacement for the DDG. We've been building Guided Missile
    Destroyers (DDGs) in large numbers, but we will be building
    DD(X) in small numbers, 8 to 12 total, and we will be building
    at 1 a year.
        So the dilemma we have is that, at one a year, it is not
    efficient to build those in two yards. If we do, our analysis
    says each ship will cost us $300 million more to build them in
    two yards. And, by the way, we just had the discussion on the
    Kennedy. When we take the Kennedy out, we save $300 million a
    year. And now we would basically spend it--if we had two yards,
    we'd just spend that $300 million a year to keep another yard
    building this ship. So having two yards is very costly to the
    Department of the Navy.
        Frankly, if we allocate ships, we don't get competition.
    The only way we can get competition is, frankly, to compete the
    DD(X) on the front end. That does give us competition, and that
    competition could, indeed, have long-term benefits to the
    Department of the Navy, because those companies would each have
    to respond to that competitive environment and, hopefully, be
    very innovative in their response to our solicitation.
        So this is an issue of affordability and allocation, versus
    competition. But it is a critical question, I understand, for
    the shipbuilders and for the Navy--but we are in the dilemma of
    either spending $300 million more a ship or competing those
    ships, and we have elected to compete, because, frankly, we
    don't have an extra $300 million a ship. If we keep paying more
    for our ships, then we buy less ships. If we buy less ships
    that cost more, then, frankly, we're in a death spiral. So,
    that's where we are, Senator.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

                                     LHA(R)

        Admiral Clark, I understand that if additional funding is
    made available for shipbuilding, that the top item on the
    Navy's list is $417 million to accelerate the delivery of the
    LHA replacement amphibious ship. Could you share with the
    subcommittee your thoughts on this? Is this an accurate
    statement about what the Navy's intentions would be if
    additional money were made available?
        Admiral Clark. Mr. Chairman, I put that list together, and
    I put that in the place I did on the list to emphasize how
    important I think it is to get going and get started with one
    of the huge transformations in the Navy/Marine Corps team.
        Joint Strike Fighter is going to deliver for the Marine
    Corps. When it does, they need a ship that's going to be
    designed, from the ground up, to be more air capable, to reap
    the harvest of the multi-billion dollar investment we're going
    to take with Joint Strike Fighter. So, I was, frankly,
    disappointed last year that we were not able to move along at a
    faster pace. So that's the reason I put that in its place.
        Equal to it, I would say, although it doesn't show it by
    the list, is moving forward as rapidly as we can with the
    Littoral combat ship. And I believe that we need to move
    forward rapidly in the maritime pre-positioning force of the
    future. And, in fact, we're looking at ways that we can get
    involved in some experimentation. The three of us have held
    meetings to try to see how we could accelerate that process. We
    believe this produces the kind of force in the future that our
    Nation is going to need.
        So, that representation is an indicator of how important I
    think that move is.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici, you're recognized for 7
    minutes.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I want to say it's a privilege to be here with all
    of you.
        I want to say to you, Admiral, I understand that you may be
    retiring this summer. I wish it wasn't so, but I guess that's
    the way it is. We owe you a real debt of gratitude for your
    great service; in particular, this last part of your life, when
    you've undertaken this tremendous job of transforming the Navy.
    I believe, whatever the complaints are, and whatever the
    parochial interests are, the parochial interests are
    legitimate, people are concerned, in terms of changes--but I
    think there has to be change. If you look at what we're doing
    now, we cannot continue to both modernize and keep everything
    we've got. It's going to be tough to pay for the defense we
    need over next 10 or 15 years, with the deficits we have. If we
    don't have a strong economy, you don't have a Navy, or you
    don't have a Marine Corps--so that's very important.
        I also want to say to you, General Hagee, I was privileged,
    just recently, to have a young man in my office from the Marine
    Corps. His last name is Valles--that's V-a-l-l-e-s; that's a
    Spanish name--and he and his wife Sandra were there because
    he's recuperating, getting well, here at Walter Reed. I want to
    say, he is a terrific young man. He's someone to be proud of.
        I will share with you--if you find a moment that we might
    talk on the phone that the care in all of the hospitals to
    which these young men go is not equal. In Washington, Bethesda
    and Walter Reed are held up by everybody that we run into, but
    there are some others about which there are some concerns. I
    want to share them with you, because I think you would be
    concerned about some of them also if we shared them with you.
    We need the best for them, right? There's no doubt about it.
    When they get to recuperating, we can't have any doctors or
    second-rate service around, because they deserve far better
    than that.
        Enough said. Let me say to both the Secretary of the Navy
    and you, Admiral, I have read, and been briefed on, the changes
    you are making, and hope to make over time, to make the fleet
    modern. Certainly that means far more technologically modern. I
    can do nothing but commend you. I hope that you have the
    fortitude and the courage to stick with it.
        I say that to you, also, Mr. Secretary. We are beginning to
    understand that you are a very superb Secretary. I'm sure the
    men in uniform are glad to have you at their side. I mean that
    literally. And so, I hope----
        Secretary England. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. That we do that right.

                               IRAQI ARMED FORCES

        With reference to the Iraq war, I have two questions, and
    you can answer them as you wish. I think the most important
    thing that we have to accomplish is that we have to change this
    war into an Iraqi war. I think you'll agree with that. I want
    to know, for the record, what you think about the progress on
    that front. General, I know this means that your men and women
    have to rely upon Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi military police.
    We're counting on them taking over, here, pretty soon. I know
    it's not easy to talk in public about these things, but, for a
    minute or so, would you tell us what you think about this and
    how you think it's working?
        My last question has to do with the technology that we have
    that could make a real dent in these explosives that are along
    the highways that seem to go without detection. It seems almost
    impossible that our technology would not be able to do a lot
    better than just have them explode. You are testifying here
    that, ``We've got the best armaments, so the explosions will do
    the minimum damage.'' We have to be making some progress to get
    rid of them before they explode. I know we have scientists that
    eventually will do that. I need information that we're doing
    the best we can, and that we might succeed in that regard
    sooner, rather than later.
        Secretary England. Senator, if I can take your second
    question, I'd like, first, though, to have the Commandant to
    address your first question. Then I'll address your second
    question.
        Senator Domenici. Fine.
        General Hagee. Sir, as far as the performance of the Iraqi
    soldiers----
        Senator Domenici. No, that was my first question. You're
    going to take the second one?
        General Hagee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. All right, General.
        General Hagee. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, during
    the battle of Fallujah, we had five Iraqi battalions operating
    with us. And I can report to you, sir, that they did extremely
    well. More importantly, after the vote on January 30, we have
    noticed, in the Al Anbar province--and that's where the marines
    are located--a respect by the Iraqi people toward their armed
    forces, and a new motivation by the Iraqi armed forces. We have
    several Iraqi battalions that are working with the marines and
    the soldiers in the Al Anbar province, and they get better
    every day.
        Over the past couple of weeks, we have had a couple of
    Iraqi battalions that have planned and executed operations--
    cordon and search operations, going after weapons caches--on
    their own. So, they are definitely improving. We are able to
    draw back some of our forces and let them take over the
    security inside of the cities, like Fallujah and Ramadi. So I'm
    optimistic that they are going to be able to take this job.
        Now, are they ever going to be a United States marine or a
    U.S. soldier? No, sir. But they don't need to be, to do the job
    over there.
        Senator Domenici. Okay.
        Mr. Secretary?

                   IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) RESEARCH

        Secretary England. Senator, regarding IEDs, we have $1
    billion allocated to the defeat of IEDs in the Department of
    Defense, and we have all the services and scientists and
    industry working on that problem. We have fielded a lot of
    equipment. We continue to field equipment. I will tell you,
    however, that the foe is very smart and very adaptable. And so,
    they keep adjusting as we find ways to defeat them, as you
    would expect. So, this will be an ongoing problem for America
    for a long time.
        Recognizing that, the Department of the Navy has taken 10
    percent of our research Science and Technology (S&T) dollars at
    the Office of Naval Research, and we are starting what I call
    the ``seed corn'' for research; not application, which is the
    billion dollars, but fundamental research. We've had the head
    of the National Academy of Science, we've had Dr. Marburger,
    we've had the National Academies of Engineering all coming
    together, and we are about to initiate, literally, a nationwide
    research effort for long-term research, because this problem
    will be with us a long time.
        So, I just want to reassure you that this gets our daily
    attention. I mean, this is something that's the very highest on
    our list of things to go solve, but it is a very difficult and
    an ongoing issue.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have three New Mexico
    issues that I want to submit to you. They're kind of peripheral
    to this discussion, desalinization and some other things. I
    won't take the time, but I'll submit them to you for your
    attention, and I thank you for your testimony.
        Secretary England. And we'll get back with you, Senator.
    Thank you very much, sir.
        Senator Domenici. General, when you get a moment, we'll
    talk on the phone about my Lieutenant, who has some concerns.
        General Hagee. Yes, sir. I'll look forward to it, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome, and General and Admiral.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

        I'd like to ask a bit about base closings. We don't,
    obviously, have a Navy base in North Dakota, but we have been
    very supportive of the Navy, and we've sent a great many
    admirals to the Navy from our State, including recently Admiral
    Owens, Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs. But let me ask about
    base closing.
        On May 16, Secretary Rumsfeld will announce to the country
    the bases that he would like closed or realigned. This time
    things have changed. In the past, the military service's have
    picked the bases that were put on the BRAC list. In this
    circumstance, the Secretary of Defense is responsible for the
    list on May 16. Can you describe for me the activities that you
    have had that will involve themselves in the Secretary of
    Defense's decision on May 16?
        Secretary England. Senator, I have a person who reports
    directly to me out of our installation and environment, and
    they have a team across the Department of the Navy. And I
    believe I can say this is the case for the three military
    services. And then we do all the analysis of all of our bases
    within the Department of the Navy. And then there are internal
    recommendations made to the three of us regarding all of the
    facilities within the Department of the Navy.
        There's another group within the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, and we have people on those teams, and they look
    across the services, in terms of jointness, because that is a
    hallmark and a tenet--that is, they get better jointness out of
    this--and also how we may jointly have higher efficiency and
    effectiveness. So there's another team that works that.
        All three of these teams report to the Secretary of
    Defense. And there's a board at the Secretary of Defense level,
    of which the three of us are part of that review board.
        So we participate at the Navy level, we participate at the
    joint level, and we participate at the Secretary of Defense
    level. And on that latter meeting--there's a number of those
    scheduled, obviously, between now and May 16 when the final
    list is put together--but we have full involvement, and we have
    full visibility into all the analysis and everything that goes
    into that decision-making process, and we are part of that
    decision-making process.
        Senator Dorgan. So----
        Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield for just one
    moment?
        Gentlemen, I must go to the floor. Our subcommittee will
    reconvene in closed session on Thursday, March 17, to discuss
    classified programs in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental. Our
    next open session will be Wednesday, April 6, at 10 a.m., when
    we'll hear from the Air Force.
        I thank you all very much, and wish you the best, Admiral.
    I apologize for the interruption.
        Secretary England. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, then the speculation--by
    some, at least--that the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) has
    taken this process into the SECDEF office and will make these
    judgments, is not entirely accurate. You're saying that
    services are full partners, and you're not going to be
    surprised on May 16 by what is announced. Is that correct?
        Secretary England. That's correct. I won't be surprised,
    Senator. I mean, we have been a full partner. Ultimately, it's
    the decision of the Secretary of Defense. I mean, ultimately,
    he will make the final decision. We may disagree on some of
    those decisions. We're not at that point yet. But we have a
    full input into that system, and we debate those with the
    Secretary, you know, in open meetings with him. So each one of
    these is discussed, debated, and our recommendations are made.
    So I would say it is a total involvement of everyone in the
    Department. Everyone in the service departments certainly has
    an input into that system.
        Senator Dorgan. And based on your knowledge, the same
    response would come from the Air Force and the Army?
        Secretary England. Yes, sir, because they're all in the
    meetings with us.
        Senator Dorgan. Okay, well, that's helpful, because I think
    there's a lot of speculation about how this list is developed
    and--so that's a very helpful answer, and I appreciate getting
    that information.

                            MARINE CORPS RECRUITING

        General Hagee, tell me what you expect with respect to
    future recruiting. I heard the question from my colleague about
    the last 2 months. I was driving to work the other day, and I
    heard that we are paying $150,000 bonuses for special
    operations folks who re-enlist. And so, we have a series of
    bonuses, I assume, to enhance recruitment. But as you look down
    the road a ways, what's your impression? You indicate that
    parents are more involved, you've got more people out
    recruiting. Do you anticipate that--for the balance of this
    year and next year, to be able to meet the recruiting goals?
        General Hagee. As far as recruiting is concerned, I believe
    that the environment will remain challenging for the next
    couple of years. In fact, as long as there are major operations
    going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that the
    environment will remain challenging.
        I do remain optimistic that we're going to be able to get
    the right numbers of young Americans with the right skills, the
    right quality, into the Marine Corps.
        I can tell you, on the retention side--and these are
    individuals that had either finished their first enlistment or
    their subsequent enlistment, and deciding on whether they're
    going to stay in the Marine Corps and make it a full career--we
    are actually doing better this year than we have in the past
    couple of years. Our retention right now for first-term re-
    enlistees for this fiscal year is about 85 percent of our
    annual goal, and we're getting the occupational skills that we
    need. So I'm very optimistic on retention.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, General Hagee, I think all of the
    members of this panel would tell you how proud they are of your
    troops, and I've met a number of them over at Walter Reed, and
    they're quite a remarkable bunch, an inspiring bunch of
    Americans who serve this country.

                              SHIP FORCE STRUCTURE

        Secretary England, how many ships do we have--active
    ships--at this point?
        Secretary England. 290.

                                  SHIP NAMING

        Senator Dorgan. And let me ask you a parochial question, if
    I might. The last ship that was named for North Dakota was
    named in 1907, and you and I have had a discussion about that.
    We have a lot of North Dakotans very proud of their service in
    the Navy and the marines. As I said, the Vice Chair of the
    Joint Chiefs, Admiral Bill Owens, has written a letter, and
    we've got a lot of folks out there that have written letter
    after letter after letter to the Navy to say, ``You know, think
    about a ship that might commemorate the service of those in
    North Dakota who have joined the Navy and joined the marines.''
    Some States have had as many as six ships named after them. And
    that's perfectly appropriate. But would you take a look at
    this, on behalf of those many North Dakotans who have served in
    the Navy and marines and who would like to see one of those 290
    ships--at least you've got a couple that you're going to name
    in the future--would like to see consideration given to a
    landlocked State that still contributes a lot to the Navy and
    the Marines?
        Secretary England. No, I understand, and I appreciate your
    input to me. I appreciate your comments today. And we are
    definitely working it. I'll get back with you, Senator.
        So it is, quote, ``in the hopper,'' and we will work that.
        Senator Dorgan. In the context of warfighting and dealing
    with terrorism and all those issues, Mr. Chairman, I understand
    the naming of ships ranks well below many of the other
    decisions, and yet it also is an honor that is bestowed upon
    the men and women who volunteer from all across this country to
    serve.
        Secretary England. No, absolutely.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator.

                       AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT DOCK (LPD-17)

        General Hagee, the budget terminates the LPD-17 program
    after the ninth ship, which is to be purchased in 2007. One
    concern that some of us have with this change is that it is a
    budget-driven decision. I recall last year's shipbuilding
    program included 12 of these ships. And I've been informed that
    as many as 15 LPD-17s are required to support the Marine Corps'
    requirement to lift three marine expeditionary brigades. So it
    seems that the program was already budget constrained before
    this year's budget was submitted containing an even lower
    number. So what are the Marine Corps' global lift requirements?
    That's my question. And what is the required number of LPD-17s
    to support those requirements?
        General Hagee. Sir, thank you for that question.
        To simply answer how many LPDs one needs for lift is a very
    complicated question, because obviously there are more
    platforms than just LPDs, and how they combine. Right now, our
    war plans require that we have 29 amphibious ships, and we have
    35 amphibious ships right now. And we have 11 LPDs right now.
    As you know, the program of record is 12. The war plan requires
    an absolute minimum of nine LPDs. The current war plans require
    a minimum of nine LPDs. That assumes that they're all
    available. My professional opinion is that, with nine, we take
    a risk. I would feel much more comfortable with 10 LPDs. I
    think that would reduce the risk. But, you're right, it is an
    affordability question, as both the Secretary and the CNO have
    testified to.
        If we had more money, I'm not sure that I would put the
    next dollar into an LPD. I am quite concerned about getting on
    with LHA(R). I am concerned about getting on with maritime pre-
    positioning force future, and buying the Littoral combat ship
    and the other platforms that are going to give us the ability
    to put those marines ashore.
        But to go right to your question, nine is the minimum. I
    think there is risk associated with that. And if we had
    sufficient funding, ten would make me much more comfortable.

                                     LHA(R)

        Senator Cochran. Okay. I understand the proposed design for
    LHA(R) lacks a well deck. Given the proposed reduction in the
    number of LPD-17s, how will this aspect of the LHA(R) design
    affect Marine Corps operations?
        General Hagee. I think when you're talking about major
    combat operations, and you're talking about putting a marine
    expeditionary brigade ashore, you're talking about more than
    LHA(R) and LPD-17, you're also talking about the maritime pre-
    positioning force future that is going to bring a lot of that
    square and cube that we need. So when you're talking about
    putting a force ashore, it's really a system of systems and how
    all of these platforms support one another.
        Just as important, you're also talking about the highspeed
    connectors, those smaller ships that are going to allow you to
    quickly offload and project that force 20, 25 miles from sea
    onto the shore.

                      SEA SWAP CONCEPT ON AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS

        Senator Cochran. General Hagee, we've had some experience
    in observing the Sea Swap concept. There have been two
    demonstrations to date, as I understand it. But, also, these
    demonstrations have not involved amphibious ships. What unique
    risk may come into play if you attempt to apply Sea Swap to
    amphibious ships?
        General Hagee. Unfortunately, we haven't had the
    opportunity to experiment with Sea Swap on amphibious ships,
    primarily because as soon as the expeditionary strike group, or
    the Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), arrive in theater, the
    marines are taken off and put ashore either in Iraq or in
    Afghanistan. And I don't know whether we're going to have,
    anytime in the near future, a real opportunity to do some real-
    world testing on that.
        Having said that, some of the challenges with amphibs, of
    course, you have a greater number of both marines and sailors
    on those amphibious ships. In addition, you have flight
    operations and you have the safety of flight operations that
    need to be considered.
        I think that Sea Swap can work. But, right now, we plain do
    not know, because we haven't had the opportunity to do it on
    larger-deck ships.
        Senator Cochran. Senator Inouye. Senator Stevens had to go
    to the floor to make statements, and you're in charge now, with
    the seniority you have and the experience you have.
        Senator Inouye. Are we recessing?
        Senator Cochran. No, sir. I was just going to yield to you
    for any further questions you have. Or, Senator Domenici----
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
        I also know why you left the hearing for a few minutes. I
    wasn't there to hear your comments, but I want to thank you for
    them, because I know what you said. I thank you very much.

                             POST COLD WAR CHANGES

        I want to ask a general question. You can take a couple of
    minutes to respond, Mr. Secretary and Admiral. You know, it
    seems to me that a lot of our preparations and military buildup
    was prepared and planned based upon the cold war. I think it
    took us quite a while to understand that the end of the cold
    war meant a really different world. Could you, for the record,
    talk about how much of the changes we're making really are
    because we don't have a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    (U.S.S.R.) in the world. If we're not changing because of that,
    why not? If that is true, it would seem to me that many things
    would be different. We're not going to be engaged in the kind
    of confrontation that we expected, except we have a nuclear
    power, and that doesn't have a lot to do with the budgets we're
    talking about. That means the nuclear deterrent and some kind
    of control over nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong
    people. I wonder if I am thinking right and if this has
    anything to do with what we're preparing for.
        Secretary England. Senator, if I can just make a general
    comment, and then I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
        I will tell you, that is what we are about. In my opening
    statement, I said we had not fully transitioned from the cold
    war, but we are trying to transition to this global war on
    terror, because we believe we'll be at this for a long time,
    while, at the same time, deterring any future threat to
    America, and, if necessary, defeating a future threat. So we
    are moving to a new Navy, and this is the pivotal year to do
    that.
        And we talked about LHA(R), the new deck for the Marine
    Corps to have more air power. We are looking to be able to
    deploy marines twice as fast, with twice the capability, with
    our new Navy. So that is specifically in response to this new
    kind of threat. And we are moving away from the Deep Blue. I
    mean, that's why the DD(X), frankly, is a much smaller number.
        We are changing the Navy from what we had structured in the
    cold war, to the Navy for the future. And that is causing,
    frankly, some angst and some stress in Washington and around
    the country, but it's a change we absolutely have to make;
    otherwise, we will be ill-prepared in the future.
        I understand it's a difficult year for a lot of people, but
    we need to make this change. And I'll let the CNO and
    Commandant say a little more about this.

                              AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT

        Senator Domenici. Well, let me ask about airplanes. It
    seems to me we continue to keep on the books and keep planning
    for airplanes, when there's nobody in the world going to have
    airplanes to compete with the ones we've got, much less the
    newer versions. That's just an aside. Maybe you could talk
    about it, generally, Admiral, in just a few comments. I'm
    taking too much time, but----
        Admiral Clark. Well, the Secretary would jump right on this
    one, since he built airplanes for much of his life. He's taught
    us a lot about that end of the business.
        But let me tell you, the Commandant and I are in total
    agreement with you. There's no way for you to know the
    specifics of this, but the Marine Corps and the Navy went
    together and decided we were going to integrate our tactical
    air. That move changed the requirement for the taxpayers of the
    United States of America by the tune of $30 to $35 billion. We
    decided that we could do a lot better for the country if we
    figured out how to make this asset work in both the Marine
    Corps and the Navy. So right now, as we speak, I've got a Navy
    squadron operating in Japan in support of his deployed forces.
    This year, he's got a marine that is the deputy commander of
    the air group on a U.S. aircraft carrier, and he will rise up
    to be the commander of the air group. Now, this hasn't happened
    in a long time.
        This is all about a different view of the world. And our
    view was this. The day of long-range Soviet naval air coming at
    us over the horizon is not what this is about. By the way, the
    Navy doesn't even believe in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) stations
    anymore because we believe in persistent combat power. And our
    persistence comes from the Aegis system that--we don't have to
    worry about if we've got the CAP station 20 degrees off axis,
    and then it's not going to do any good, and blowing dollar
    bills out of the tailpipe of airplanes orbiting on station. And
    so, our approach--there are a lot of things that have changed
    in the last 3 or 4 years.
        And the Secretary's comment about, ``How many big ships are
    we going to have?''--we've got a 50-year supply of aircraft
    carriers, and we cannot be the Navy that this Nation needs
    without aircraft carriers. The question of the future, and we
    have put forth--is, we must be more than just an aircraft-
    carrier-centric force. And so, 3 years ago, we brought up a
    proposal up here that said this. No longer will we look at the
    amphibious ready groups of old, and that if they ever have to
    do anything serious, well, the carrier's going to have to go
    there with them. And we decided we're going to start putting
    other assets with them so they can go take on issues themselves
    and distribute this force globally to deal with today's world.
    And that's a fourth-generation warfare world that's focused on
    non-nation states and asymmetric warfare. And the kind of
    things that we see, where the marines are going to have to be
    able to go where you can't get a foothold--somebody doesn't
    give you a permission slip to bring your people ashore, we're
    going to be able to go, using the maritime domain, and make
    quiet little visits to people that they didn't expect us to
    come, with smaller and smaller force sets. All of this is about
    DD(X) and the kind of precision that enables them to not have
    to take such a big footprint ashore, because we can support
    them with precision from a long-range, in the sea and from the
    air, with Joint Strike Fighter in the future.
        So, that's a very, very short answer to a long question
    that deserves better. But this is also a key issue in the QDR
    and the things that we need to be focusing on in the days
    ahead.

                           FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I know that the General
    wants to answer. I must go to preside at a meeting to report
    out a couple of nominees. I don't want him to think I'm not
    here. If you can handle it, however, he can either not answer
    or he can answer for you and--even though it's my question,
    whichever you'd prefer.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Please proceed, sir.
        General Hagee. Thank you very much for that question, sir.
    I think that's really a very, very important question.
        I won't talk about platforms. I could talk about platforms
    for some time, and what they're doing on today's battlefield.
    But Admiral Clark talked about fourth-generation warfare, and
    one of the things about fourth----
        Senator Domenici. General, before I leave, after you were
    finished, I would have asked, How come it took so long? You
    know, the cold war has been over a long time. But, anyway, I'm
    glad we're doing transforming the military in a large way.
        Thank you.
        General Hagee. One of the things about fourth-generation
    warfare is that the individual squad leader and the platoon
    commander are going to have to make more and more of those
    strategic type of decisions. And in order to properly prepare
    him or her to make those decisions, we are significantly
    changing how we educate and how we train marines, especially on
    the enlisted side. And it's just not combat skills. We've
    always had those skills, and we're going to continue to have
    those skills. But, for example, over the past year, we have
    sent 4,000 marines to foreign-language school, most of them in
    Arabic, but in some of the other languages in that particular
    region. We have contracted professors from the Naval Post-
    Graduate School to give us classes on the Islamic religion, on
    the Arabic culture, so that they have a sensitivity, a
    situational understanding of the environment in which they are
    going to operate so that they can make better decisions. These
    types of educational initiatives are going to become part of
    our professional military education so that that young marine
    is better able to make decisions on the fourth-generation
    battlefield.

                            SAILORS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, if I may ask a question. I
    notice that you're deploying 5,000 more sailors to Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Are they receiving any special training? Because,
    after all, they're seagoing men.
        Secretary England. Mr. Chairman, the CNO is probably more
    attuned to the specific people, but, frankly, I believe most of
    the people we have in Iraq now are corpsmen deployed with our
    marines and our Sea-Air-Land Naval Special Warfare Forces
    (SEALs). As the CNO says, our SEALs haven't seen the water for
    a long time. But we have, basically, our special forces SEALs
    and our corpsmen, and that's the bulk of the people, along with
    our Seabees. So the people we have there are very attuned to
    that environment. Our Seabees, they spend a lot of time there,
    obviously, in the reconstruction. They're very valuable. So I
    think it's--the people I meet there, the Seabees, it's the
    corpsmen and the SEALs, and they're obviously well equipped for
    everything that takes place in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Senator Inouye. So it's not unusual.
        Secretary England. It's not unusual. And we also have force
    protection people there. As a matter of fact, we are augmenting
    the Army in various places now by putting in some of our force
    protection people. No, I would say they're right at home, in
    terms of their training and capability. That's where they
    should be for the nation at this time.
        Admiral Clark. Those individuals are the normal ones that
    we would send in there. In the last cycle, we started sending
    some Navy people in to work hand in hand with the Army, because
    they were short of combat service and combat service support
    people. So we now have individuals that are literally in Army
    billets, and those are increasing. Those people are receiving
    special training, and we send them through a course hosted by
    the Army before we send them in country.

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Inouye. I'd like to congratulate all of you for
    another successful missile intercept in the Aegis Missile
    Defense Program. Five out of six strikes, you did very well.
    This program is run by the Missile Defense Agency. Is the Navy
    thinking of taking it over?
        Secretary England. No, sir, we're not thinking of taking it
    over. We are part of this total missile defense; but, as you
    comment, it is a very, very successful part of the program.
        Senator Inouye. And you've been running it.
        Secretary England. Yes, sir, we have been running it. It is
    within the Department of the Navy, for the Missile Defense
    Agency. But it is an inherent Navy capability. We have been
    modifying our Aegis fire control systems. I believe we have two
    more launches this year still scheduled. So we continue to
    develop and improve this capability; and our judgment is, this
    will be a very valuable capability for America. It's already
    been demonstrated to be very valuable, but I think Missile
    Defense Agency will, you know, obviously increase their efforts
    in this area. But it is their program, and we do support them.

                           FUTURE OF THE NAVY STUDIES

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, as you know, many studies
    have been published on the future of our Navy. Recently, your
    Office of Force Transformation issued a report calling for more
    ships, dispersed over broader areas, smaller, faster, increased
    capability and flexibility. Is that within your vision? Do you
    approve this? Or, is this just talk?
        Secretary England. Well, there are a lot of studies, but I
    would tell you, that is very attuned. And I think attuned to
    what you've heard today; in particular, the Littoral combat
    ship. Also, we have these highspeed connectors. We have X-
    Craft. We have a number of experimental craft right now which
    all fit that description. But our vision is Littoral combat
    ship will have a very, very large role in the future Department
    of the Navy, and that's why it is so important that we continue
    to pursue that program with rigor. We would like to build those
    as fast as we can.
        We've used new design approaches, new acquisition
    approaches. We are trying to get that fielded. It will be
    utilized in a large number of areas. It will be just literally
    moving our marines and their equipment, very, very highspeed.
    As you know, we have two contractors working. We will decide,
    at some future date, if we want to down-select or continue with
    each design. That decision has not been made.
        This is a very valuable part of our future force. It will
    augment almost everything we do in the Department of the Navy.
    And so, I would say that a report like that, that says,
    ``larger, faster, more adaptable''--``smaller''--pardon me--
    ``smaller, faster, more adaptable, quick roll-on and roll-off
    of our equipment, in terms of changing the capability of those
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCSs),'' that is the future, Senator.
    That is where we're going. And it's important we get there as
    soon as we can.
        CNO?
        Senator Inouye. Does this budget bring you toward that
    future?
        Secretary England. Yes and no. We would like, this year, to
    have one more LCS, Mr. Chairman. We did have one in the budget,
    and we were directed, last year, to take it out of this year's
    budget, so we did. But we would like to have one more in the
    budget this year. That is one area that would be very helpful
    to us, would be to add an LCS, because we now have a gap year,
    and we would like to fill that gap. So that would be very
    helpful this year, if we could add that LCS back into the
    budget.
        And the CNO, if you----
        Senator Inouye. I can assure you that has been noted.
        Secretary England. Good. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Admiral Clark. I would say, Admiral Cebrowski's study, out
    of the Office of Transformation, you know, had near term and
    far term very extreme kinds of recommendations. His extreme
    recommendation was this. And he told me personally, he said,
    ``Vern, when you finish LCS and prove that it functions well at
    that size with the roll-on/roll-off modules and all this, which
    is a revolution, in concept--when you finish that, you need to
    build one-half the size of LCS, and then you need to build one-
    half that size, because the smaller--the more force you have,
    and more lethality, in smaller packages, the more he's going to
    like it.''
        Well, I would say, we agree with that concept completely.
    Now, all of his study was all done with nonparametric analysis,
    which means that you've got to do it on the parametric side
    before you really know you can do this. And so, we have to
    prove that we can do this, and you can't do it overnight.
        He then goes on to talk about miniature aircraft carriers
    and pieces like that, that will capitalize on the Joint Strike
    Fighter STOVL concept. Well, that's exactly what we have been
    saying for the last 3 years, that we're going to invest
    billions of dollars in that capability; we want platforms that
    can carry it around. And that's why LHA(R) is where it is on my
    unfunded priority list. I want to get going.
        Now, he would then want to go half the size again, and so
    forth. My view is, for a long term--his study is a concept, and
    we are in support of that concept. Now we have to make it
    reality, and we're moving toward that as rapidly as we can.

                               STEALTH ON VESSELS

        Senator Inouye. Are you keeping up with the Air Force on
    maintaining stealth on your vessels?
        Admiral Clark. It's a different environment to maintain
    stealth, but when Joint Strike Fighter delivers, we will have
    the same kind of challenges the Air Force has, in a different
    environment. By the way, the Joint Strike Fighter is going to
    be a phenomenal airplane. And the carrier version of this is
    going to have combat reach that we have never had. No other
    strike--no other attack air platform will come close to it. And
    it's going to have--I guess, be careful here in an open forum,
    but it's going to have--let me just say, it's going to have
    terrific stealth properties.
        On the ship-borne side, remember, we're doing all this--
    DD(X), for example, a 14,000-ton ship, is going to look, to the
    enemy, like a fishing boat. It's a pretty stealthy platform,
    and I have said, in the public domain, that it's quieter than a
    688 submarine. It's going to be a tough platform for enemies to
    deal with.
        And so, this whole array of what the Secretary talked
    about--this is a critical year. Everything in our program on
    the shipbuilding side--the world has not seen it delivered yet,
    except the very first Virginia-class submarine, which delivered
    a few weeks ago. Everything else is out in front of us. And so,
    we're turning the corner toward a new future.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                              U.S.S. SAN FRANCISCO

        Mr. Secretary, on January 8, we had a bad accident on the
    U.S.S. San Francisco, a collision with an undersea structure--
    ``mountain,'' it was called by some. And I wonder if this
    illustrates the fact that our Navy needs to upgrade the charts
    and capabilities of detecting undersea obstructions so that we
    won't see this kind of accident in the future. And, if so, what
    is in this budget that would address that issue? Or, if there
    is no specific request for additional oceanography activity, or
    a ship for oceanography activity that may be needed, or
    upgrading plans for mapping the ocean areas where we're
    operating now and will likely operate in the future, should we
    include that in the supplemental?
        Secretary England. Mr. Chairman, from all the briefings
    I've had, I believe it would be premature, because the analysis
    is still in process, in terms of what happened with U.S.S. San
    Francisco. So there's still an accident investigation ongoing,
    there is not a final report. I think there are some tentative
    conclusions, but the last report I saw--I mean, I would not
    make any final conclusion until that accident investigation is
    complete. So I would defer that.
        CNO may have a different view, but I believe we still need
    to wait until we have a final analysis, final findings of that
    accident.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Clark, what's your reaction?
        Admiral Clark. My reaction is, Mr. Chairman, that we don't
    have perfect knowledge of the underwater world. And we won't in
    our lifetime. That does not mean we're not investing in it. And
    we have been investing in it for years. And so, there are
    resources invested to improve our understanding of that. But
    the key here, from the analysis of this accident, will be, are
    we prioritized correctly in where we are expending our research
    resources to improve our knowledge and understanding? And is it
    at a rate that is going to be correct? It has been correct up
    until now, with the understanding that nobody will ever have
    perfect knowledge.
        Now, then, that does suggest that there will be parts of
    the world that we know more than others, and commanders have to
    know how to operate with that as an understanding. So, that's
    where I would go, based upon what I know today.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have some other
    questions, but I will submit them for the record.
        And I join you, Mr. Chairman and other members, in
    expressing our appreciation for the tremendous leadership this
    panel is providing for our Navy and Marine Corps team. It's
    truly outstanding. We're proud of you, and you make us proud of
    our Navy and Marine Corps.
        Secretary England. Thank you, sir.

                                 MEDAL OF HONOR

        Senator Inouye. I have just one more question, if I may ask
    the Commandant. I believe I followed the press reports coming
    out of Iraq and Afghanistan as closely as any American. I have
    yet to see any marine, or, for that matter, any sailor,
    soldier, or airman, being cited or awarded the Medal of Honor.
    Am I wrong?
        General Hagee. No, sir. There has not been a Medal of Honor
    awarded from this particular conflict.
        Senator Inouye. Is that unusual?
        General Hagee. Sir, one thing I am not allowed to comment
    on, by policy, is whether or not there are any that have been
    recommended. I can just report that there have been none
    awarded.
        Senator Inouye. Well, we have read accounts of individual
    heroism, and I'm just wondering if we are recognizing the
    service that our men and women provide us.
        General Hagee. Sir, I would be very surprised if there were
    not some recommendations for the Congressional Medal of Honor
    working their way up the chain of command. As you know, for
    that particular medal, that can take some time for it to get
    all the way to Washington.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. Well, I join Senator Cochran in thanking
    all of you for your service to our Nation, and the men and
    women who serve under your command. It's been extraordinary. I
    used to think that my generation was the super-generation, but
    I've changed my mind; it's your generation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                    Question Submitted to Gordon R. England
                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                            JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL

        Question. Secretary England, I understand the Navy has been
    designated the lead Service for the procurement of the Joint High Speed
    Vessel program to meet Army and Navy theater transport needs. I
    understand the Army was pleased with the catamaran design they leased
    from Australia, and I have been informed the Navy and Marine Corps have
    also leased similar vessels over the past several years. I am sure
    there are several companies in the United States that can produce an
    equivalent vessel to support intra-theater transport, alleviating the
    need for costly, long-term leases.
        Can you provide the committee with the status of the Navy's efforts
    on this joint program?
        Answer. The Navy is in the process of initiating an Analysis of
    Alternatives (AoA). A detailed AoA is expected to be available this
    November.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to Admiral Vern Clark
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                           SEA-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

        Question. Admiral Clark, I am aware of the Navy's conversion of
    Aegis cruisers to perform missile defense functions, including a ship-
    based defense against short and medium range missiles. I applaud the
    accomplishments to date, including another successful test last month
    (February 24, 2005) of this capability.
        What role do you envision for the Navy in the future of missile
    defense? Additionally, you have estimated the future fleet size at
    between 243 and 375 ships, and my understanding is the Navy's role in
    missile defense will have a significant influence on this number. What
    specific missile defense missions would most affect the size of the
    fleet?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is funding and developing
    the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program (Aegis BMD) and
    collaborating closely with Navy to fully leverage existing systems to
    their fullest capability. MDA's record of success since 2002 with Aegis
    BMD is five successes out of six efforts, a strong level of performance
    for any missile development, but particularly for one of this
    complexity. The ability to project defense against ballistic missiles
    from the sea is critical to reducing the operational risk posed during
    forcible entry operations and prior to the establishment of tactical
    BMD forces ashore. Developing this capability on existing ships is an
    important operational advantage and prudent expenditure of taxpayer
    resources. By integrating the BMD mission on existing platforms, Navy
    anticipates meeting the BMD mission requirements within the force
    structure I outlined in my testimony (260-325 ships). Upgrading
    existing Aegis platforms and a firm commitment to the development of
    CG(X) is, however, absolutely required to meet ballistic missile
    threats. CG(X), our future maritime dominance ship, will be the first
    ship designed from the keel up to both command and actively participate
    in the missile defense battle.

                          AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROPELLERS

         Question. Admiral Clark, I have been informed that our older
    Aircraft Carriers have a high wear-out rate on their propellers, which
    are based on a 30 year old design. As I understand it, the choice is to
    either replace the propellers with refurbished ones or to replace
    propellers with a newer design that we put on Aircraft Carriers
    currently being built and which do not wear-out like the older design.
        Admiral, in order to help maintain a more ready Fleet, would you
    agree that it is in the Navy's and the Nation's best interest to limit
    unnecessary downtime to Aircraft Carriers for things such as repeated
    propeller replacements, especially when the Carrier Fleet may be
    reduced from 12 to 11?
        Answer. The Fleet Response Plan and careful scheduling of
    maintenance periods has significantly increased the operational
    availability of the carrier force. Replacement of carrier propeller
    blades is currently accomplished during regularly scheduled maintenance
    periods. NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers were originally built with
    propellers designed for a much smaller carrier (CV 59) and, as a
    result, propellers wear faster with replacement accommodated within the
    scheduled maintenance availabilities. Specifically, outboard propeller
    refurbishment is required every three years and inboard propeller
    refurbishment required every six years. Propeller wear is tracked
    through routine underwater hull inspections between maintenance
    periods.
        To increase efficiency and reduce overall life-cycle costs, a new
    propeller design was completed in June 2000 and three ship sets are
    under contract with delivery lasting until November 2007. A contract
    for two additional ship sets is being negotiated with delivery at a
    rate of one every three months beginning in February 2008 and ending in
    November 2009. The new propellers are initially targeted for CVN 77,
    CVN 70 RCOH and CVN 21, with a back-fit planned for the entire NIMITZ
    Class.

                LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) FIRE SCOUT EMPLOYMENT

        Question. Admiral Clark, I noticed in reviewing your unfunded
    programs list that you require an additional 6 Fire Scout Unmanned
    Aerial Vehicles. I believe most of us have heard commanders in
    Afghanistan and Iraq attest to the vital capabilities Unmanned Aerial
    Vehicles provide. Can you explain how these additional Fire Scout
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would expand the capabilities you envision for
    the Littoral Combat Ship?
        Answer. The additional six Fire Scouts would triple the operational
    availability of Fire Scouts, provide additional flexibility in
    employment and speed development of concepts of operations at the
    tactical level. Operating as an extension of the ship, Fire Scout
    greatly expands the LCS' area of control. Initial Fire Scouts will be
    equipped with proven surveillance systems--electro-optical, infrared,
    and laser designator--for maritime surveillance and targeting.
        Leveraging the ability to configure the Fire Scout's payload at
    sea, planning is underway for block upgrades including the Coastal
    Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA), the Airborne
    Communication Package (ACP), and future weaponization. COBRA will
    detect mines in the beach and surf zone; ACP will relay communications
    over the horizon, netting dispersed units; and air-to-surface weapons
    will assist in countering small boat threats. Future spiral development
    efforts being considered include anti-submarine warfare sensors and a
    very lightweight torpedo for engaging submarines. The Fire Scout
    Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) will extend LCS' span
    of control by providing a complementary capability to manned
    helicopters and other strike group or joint assets.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                HIGH ENERGY LASER LETHALITY EXPERIMENT (HELSTF)

        Question. Admiral Clark, it is my understanding that the Navy has
    been conducting a series of experiments at the High Energy Laser
    Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) in New Mexico. These experiments have
    looked at the very difficult problem of defending against targets such
    as cruise missiles that approach a target ``head on''. As part of the
    solution, the Navy has looked at using directed energy systems to
    overcome the technical difficulties of tracking and targeting low
    flying targets.
        Would you care to comment, in general, about the Navy's progress in
    developing high energy laser weapons? Can you comment specifically on
    the status of the high energy laser program (known as HEL-LLAT) to
    target and track low flying targets? What progress has the Navy made on
    the program?
        Answer. The Navy high energy laser weapon development is focused on
    two laser technologies, Free Electron Laser (FEL) and the Solid State
    Laser (SSL). The Free Electron Laser (FEL) program's goal is
    development of megawatt class devices that could be effective against
    current and future threats and suitable for new construction ships with
    Integrated Power Systems. Currently, a 10 kW FEL has been developed at
    the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and additional
    studies are being conducted to determine the best approach for reaching
    the 100 kW power levels, the next developmental milestone.
        Solid State Lasers (SSL) are being developed by all Services and
    the Joint Technology Office for use on vehicles, aircraft and ships.
    These systems are smaller than free electron lasers but operate at
    lower power levels. SSL research is focused on increasing power and
    efficiency while decreasing size and weight. It is projected that a 100
    kW Solid State Laser will be available in the next three to four years
    with systems engineering and development leading to a deployable system
    within the next ten years.
        For tracking and beam control, the Navy has unique requirements.
    This is due primarily to the large range of potential threats from
    unmanned air vehicles, small boats and anti-ship cruise missiles; the
    most stressing threat is the inbound, supersonic, highly maneuverable
    missile. The High Energy Laser-Low Aspect Target Tracking (HEL-LATT)
    program was created to determine requirements and develop tools to
    support laser tracking using existing systems and off the shelf
    technology. To date, new optical systems have been integrated,
    sensitive cameras are being delivered, and the tracking algorithm
    effectively acquires and tracks inbound targets through high gravity
    maneuvers. This year, Navy is funding the integration and evaluation of
    the new hardware to assess its potential against future threats.

                        NAVY DESALINATION PROGRAM (EUWP)

        Question. Admiral Clark, as you may know, the Navy is set to
    deliver the Expeditionary Unit Water Purification (EUWP) system to
    Alamogordo, NM at the beginning of April for field testing. This unit
    will be capable of supplying 100,000 gallons of portable water per day
    from contaminated sources and will eventually support Marine Corps
    expeditionary operations and homeland security needs. As the chief
    sponsor of this program in Congress, I want to thank you and the Office
    of Naval Research for the good work you have done on this program and I
    look forward to seeing the unity firsthand in Alamogordo.
        Given that the Navy has taken on a civilian partner (the Bureau of
    Reclamation) to jointly manage this desalination research program, do
    you believe this arrangement will facilitate a smooth transfer of
    technology to the civilian desalination market? Can you provide (for
    the record if necessary) an update on the phase-two of the EUWP
    program? What are the milestones that have been set for the 500,000
    gallon unit?
        Answer. The Expeditionary Unit Water Purification (EUWP) program
    has benefited from the expertise of many organizations, including other
    DOD Services, Federal Agencies, and private contractors. In particular,
    the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) participation is expected to assist
    in the transfer of beneficial desalination technology to the civilian
    market in its role as the principal conduit of desalination systems to
    both consumers and suppliers. The EUWP Generation I (GEN I), a 100,000
    gallon per day (gpd) technology demonstrator, completed fabrication and
    is undergoing extensive testing to exercise the full range of
    performance specifications.
        Current efforts to increase the output of water purification
    facilities are on schedule. Existing plans are to integrate and
    evaluate promising technology into a 300,000 gpd engineering prototype
    model, designated GEN II (there are no efforts to develop a 500,000 gpd
    system). The preliminary design of GEN II--suitable for use on a large
    aircraft carrier--is complete. The two GEN II milestones currently
    underway are (1) component development and (2) analysis of alternative
    contracting options for managing the integration, assembly, and
    evaluation of the large capacity technology demonstrator.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to General Michael W. Hagee
                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                         FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL

        Question. General Hagee, the Marines continue to perform well in
    Iraq and around the world. In Iraq, your Marines are operating in one
    of the toughest areas where insurgents and Sunni extremists still wish
    to disrupt stability. I understand that the supplemental request
    contains approximately $5 billion for the Marine Corps. What I would
    like to know is if the request contains all the resources necessary to
    ensure the Marines on the ground have the equipment necessary to
    successfully accomplish their mission? What additional resources does
    the Congress need to provide to ensure continued success in Iraq as
    well as to prepare for the future?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Supplemental fully supports the
    Marines deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism, including
    those deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, the
    fiscal year 2005 Supplemental begins to address our future
    requirements. Included in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental are
    requirements in support of our Force Structure Rebalancing effort, our
    long-term plans in Djibouti, and shortfalls in Prepositioning and Home
    Station equipment that are currently being used in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom. The Marine Corps preliminary estimate to ``set the force'' is
    approximately $10 billion, but we continue to refine this to ensure
    accuracy in reporting future needs for continued success.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       ROCKET, ARTILLERY, MORTAR DEFENSE

        Question. General Hagee, as you know, one of the difficult problems
    our Marines and soldiers face in Iraq is the threat of rockets,
    artillery and mortars. My state is at the forefront of directed energy
    research and testing, and I have long supported DE as a
    transformational capability that can provide solutions to problems like
    RAM defense. You hear from your commanders on the ground and from
    Marines who face these threats on a daily basis.
        What is the current Marine Corps approach for protecting Marines
    against rockets, artillery and mortars?
        Answer. Protecting our Marines is one of our primary concerns and
    is essential to mission accomplishment. To specifically address
    mortars, I MEF has had success with two Lightweight Counter-Mortar
    Radar (LCMR) loaned from the Army. The LCMR detects incoming mortar
    rounds, enabling units to take appropriate countermeasures. Success in
    theater has prompted the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to purchase one
    additional LCMR for testing and evaluation with our operational forces.
    In a parallel effort, we are requesting supplemental funding to procure
    ground counter fire sensor systems to quickly locate incoming fires,
    including mortars with low trajectories. Marine Corps Systems Command
    is evaluating two passive sensors systems to complement the currently
    fielded Q-46 counter-battery radars in providing 24/7 and 360-degree
    force protection.
        Directed Energy (DE) weapons remain an area of interest for
    protecting our Marines as well. The Marine Corps, in coordination with
    the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, is participating in several
    different DE weapons developmental efforts lead by the other services.
    Only one of the on-going DE developmental programs, the Airborne
    Tactical Laser program lead by SOCOM, appears to have the potential to
    defeat artillery and mortar equipment.
        Question. Are you aware of the capabilities of the Mobile Tactical
    High Energy Laser (at HELSTF) and the success it has had in testing
    against artillery?
        Answer. The Marine Corps is aware of the capabilities of the Mobile
    Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) and its successful tests in late
    2004 against dynamic targets such as mortar rounds. The Marine Corps
    will continue to monitor the progress of the US Army's MTHEL program
    for applicability to its Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar (C-RAM)
    defense.
        Question. Do you believe it would be worth accelerating the
    fielding of directed energy systems to protect our men and women in the
    field from RAM threats?
        Answer. Directed energy is one of many technologies that may
    ultimately be utilized in Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (RAM) defense. The
    U.S. Army is managing the development of Counter RAM technologies that
    do not include Directed Energy and are currently deployed in Iraq in an
    initial capability status. At this point in time, directed energy may
    be too immature as a technology to be a candidate for accelerated
    fielding.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. The hearing is
    recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 6.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Inouye,
    Leahy, and Dorgan.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
            GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, CHIEF OF STAFF

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary and General
    Jumper. It's good to see you before our subcommittee at this
    time.
        It's great--a matter of great importance. I'm sorry to say
    that there are problems about votes and schedules that have
    been changed due to the joint session of Congress. We do thank
    you each for your dedicated service to our Nation and to the
    people that serve with you in the Air Force. We remain
    committed to do as much as we can to assist you in your jobs,
    and we know you're confronted with a very difficult task in
    modernizing the Air Force and meeting the challenges that we
    have in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        We have begun our review of the 2006 Defense budget. And
    from your budget request and from your posture statement, we
    understand the Air Force is placing priority on modernization
    through the continued investments in the F/A-22, the C-17, and
    the F-35. We also note a significant commitment to the next
    generation of space platforms, and look forward to hearing your
    statements and priorities today.
        Senator Inouye will be along momentarily. He's asked us to
    proceed. Your full statements are already part of the record.
    We appreciate your having provided them, according to our
    rules, and would like to have you make your remarks at this
    time.
        Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee.
        I'm honored to appear before you today representing our
    United States Air Force. I'm especially honored to be here with
    General John Jumper, the Air Force Chief of Staff. Together, we
    direct a fantastic group of military and civilian airmen at
    work every day defending this country.
        I thank this subcommittee and the entire Congress for your
    support to our airmen. We will need your continued support as
    we face demanding challenges in the months and years ahead.
        As Acting Secretary, I have five major priorities for the
    coming months. They are, first, recapitalizing our force;
    second, weathering the 2005 fiscal storm; third, re-balancing
    and shaping our force; fourth, continuing transformation; and,
    finally, restoring your trust and confidence in the Air Force
    and its leadership.

                          RECAPITALIZING AGING SYSTEMS

        The Air Force's number one challenge is recapitalizing our
    aging systems. We need to find the right balance between
    acquiring new systems and keeping our legacy systems flying.
    Addressing this long-term recapitalization problem is made all
    the more demanding by the huge shortfalls we face this year in
    our personnel and operations accounts. General Jumper and I
    recently directed the Air Force to cut back on peacetime
    readiness and training operations to conserve funds. But
    cutting back, alone, can't close the $3 billion gap in our
    operation and maintenance (O&M) account. We are also short some
    $700 million in our military personnel account. And there, too,
    cutting back will not close the gap. We'll need your help, by
    acting quickly on the President's supplemental budget request
    and by considering favorably the painful reprogramming actions
    we will undoubtedly forward to you in the coming months.

                                 FORCE SHAPING

        In force shaping, we face the challenge of our own success.
    In the current fiscal year, we temporarily slowed recruiting so
    that the Active Force will be at or below our congressionally
    authorized end strength by October 1. Fiscal year 2006 will
    return us to a normal recruiting year, and we'll need your
    support in the fiscal year 2006 appropriation for robust
    recruiting and accession programs. Our goal is a properly sized
    and shaped force, with the right end strength, the right skill
    mix, and the right balance between active duty, Guard, Reserve,
    and civilians.

                           CONTINUING TRANSFORMATION

        My fourth priority is to sustain our momentum in
    transforming the way we manage our part of the Department of
    Defense enterprise. From the national security personnel system
    to our capabilities review and risk assessment, base
    requirements determination process, to improved information-
    technology domain management, we are ensuring that our Air
    Force remains efficient, agile, and adaptable to meet the
    emerging threats of this century.

                         RESTORING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

        Finally, I'm concerned that events of the last few years
    have eroded your trust and confidence in your Air Force and its
    leaders. Restoring that trust and confidence is a solemn
    obligation I take very seriously.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    thank you again for your consistent support. The United States
    Air Force remains committed to protecting and defending our
    country's interests at home and abroad by enabling freedom of
    maneuver for joint and coalition forces and applying combat
    power, when directed. We are meeting today's threats, and, with
    your continued support, we will be prepared to meet tomorrow's
    threats, as well.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Honorable Michael L. Dominguez and General John
                                   P. Jumper
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the Air
    Force has 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 2006 budget takes a significant step toward
    that future.
        During the last decade the United States Air Force transformed to a
    modular expeditionary force of ten Air Expeditionary Force packages
    providing agile air and space power that has proven so successful
    across the spectrum of operations from No-Fly Zone operations to 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 Future Total Force that meets increased demands
    for persistent intelligence, rapid mobility, and precision strike
    capabilities. These requirements-based capabilities, derived from our
    Concepts of Operation, are the necessary capabilities for joint and
    combined force operations; and represent the trades available between
    and among service components to deliver the right effects to combatant
    commanders.
        We are rebalancing the force by prudently changing our accession
    goals and realigning manpower to overstressed career fields to better
    balance our Airmen skill sets to get us to our authorized end strength.
    We will take advantage of our Total Force expertise by more closely
    aligning our Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve
    units into associate units to enhance our overall capability. We will
    transform our command and control structure by establishing new
    Warfighting Headquarters, positioned globally, to provide Combatant
    Commanders the most effective means to command and control air and
    space forces. The efficiencies realized will help ensure the air
    dominance required for U.S. global operational access. But
    reorganization is just one effort used to adapt and enhance our force.
        Recapitalization and modernization of our aging weapon systems and
    wise investments in science and technology are crucial if we are to
    realize improvements in close air support, long-range strike, and
    operationally responsive space. Likewise, changes in the traditional
    methods of deterrence will require new capabilities to transform the
    current Triad of intercontinental and sea-launched ballistic missiles,
    and bomber aircraft into a New Triad--a diverse portfolio of non-
    nuclear and nuclear ``strike capabilities'' and active and passive
    defenses. While we remain engaged in contingency operations and
    homeland defense missions, we look to the future where completely
    networked, horizontally integrated operations will lead to complete
    domination of the global commons of air, space, and cyberspace.
        Our 2005 Posture Statement reflects our good stewardship to manage,
    maintain, and develop an irreplaceable defense resource--America's Air
    Force. It is our vision for the future--a future in which the world's
    finest Airmen, together with our sister Services, will remain
    effectively decisive in combat to attain victory.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Today's security environment is characterized by change and
    ambiguity. The future will include a variety of challenges, including
    the risk of catastrophic attacks on the homeland, and the possibility
    of disruptive technological breakthroughs by our adversaries. The
    number and character of potential U.S. adversaries is growing and
    changing, as states and non-state actors acquire advanced technology
    and even weapons of mass destruction. We can foresee the near-term
    threats posed by ballistic and cruise missiles; chemical, biological,
    radiological, and nuclear weapons; advanced double-digit surface-to-air
    missiles; and sophisticated combat aircraft. We should also anticipate
    computer network attacks and attacks on other critical infrastructure,
    including space networks. Not only must we be prepared to confront
    these 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 sea and cyberspace;
    however, we cannot maintain this advantage using yesterday's technology
    in the systems and air and space vehicles of our current force
    structure. Recapitalizing our aging systems is our number one
    challenge.
        We are steadfastly meeting these challenges head on. With
    capabilities-based planning; investments in modernization, science and
    technology; Airmen development; and a focus on integration, we will
    transform into a more lethal force.
        We are working with equal intensity to increase the integration and
    effectiveness of the joint and interagency team. The Air Force is
    responsible for several missions essential to the successful
    prosecution of any joint expeditionary operation: we provide the
    persistent intelligence and communications networks that deliver
    decision-quality information to the joint force commander; we provide
    global mobility in the airlift and tanker forces that move people and
    equipment anywhere on the planet; and we provide rapid strike by
    employing an umbrella of kinetic and non-kinetic strike capabilities to
    deliver precise, tailored effects.
        For America to hold its military advantage, the Air Force must
    continue to improve its vital national capabilities. This means
    anticipating the battlespace effects required in the future; we must
    begin today to create the force we will need tomorrow. The Air Force
    must adapt for the future without degrading its ability to conduct
    operations now and in the near term. At the same time, we must
    recognize fiscal constraints and remain a responsible custodian of the
    taxpayers' dollar. We have developed a long-range plan to allocate
    resources, balance risks, and shape the force to protect our nation--a
    comprehensive Future Total Force (FTF).
        Within FTF, we are restructuring our organizations for the decades
    ahead. The organizational concept within FTF leverages the strengths of
    all three components (Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, and Air National
    Guard), as well as anticipated advances in technology, to create the
    effects needed in tomorrow's battlespace. FTF encompasses all domains:
    space, air, ground, and information. Most importantly, it capitalizes
    on our most potent, flexible resource: our Airmen.
        Our Airmen are a vital national resource. A key element in their
    development is continuing to adapt the force structure to support
    expeditionary operations. We face the paradox of suffering shortfalls
    in certain high-demand career fields while exceeding our overall
    congressionally authorized end strength. Therefore, we have enacted
    several programs to reduce the total number of Air Force personnel
    while reinvigorating career fields experiencing shortfalls.
        As this century unfolds, technological innovation is accelerating
    at an unprecedented pace. Our challenge is to quickly convert
    laboratory ideas into battlefield effects. This entails more than
    creating new weapon systems; it means adopting a developmental culture
    that is inherently agile and responsive, enabling state-of-the-art
    technologies to reach the battlefield in real time. Such institutional
    agility will allow us to aggressively divest our legacy systems, field
    the capabilities needed to meet new strategic challenges, and integrate
    operations with those of the other Services and our coalition partners.
        Air and space power is an essential component of a joint
    warfighting team and a critical force multiplier for our Soldiers,
    Sailors, and Marines. Our paramount responsibility is to provide air
    and space dominance over the battlefield to enable the freedom of
    maneuver necessary for the success of joint and coalition operations.
        Whether strengthening the capabilities of Airmen on the
    battlefield; enabling joint service net-centric operations; furnishing
    more airlift and aerial refueling capability; or establishing an Air
    Component Coordination Element with ground force commanders, the Air
    Force is committed to increasing support to the joint warfighter. The
    United States Air Force makes the whole team better.

                           AIR AND SPACE POWER TODAY

        Even as the Air Force moves forward with the Future Total Force, we
    are engaged around the globe. Across many continents and missions in
    air and space, the Air Force is a complete partner with our sister
    Services, inter-agency partners, and friends and allies.
    Global War on Terrorism
        Since the shockwaves of September 11, 2001, the Air Force has been
    integral to conducting and enabling joint and coalition operations in
    the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Across three campaigns, Operation
    NOBLE EAGLE (ONE), Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) and Operation IRAQI
    FREEDOM (OIF), the Air Force capabilities of rapid strike; global
    mobility; and persistent command, control, communications, computers,
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) helped defend
    the air sovereignty of North America; break Taliban control of
    Afghanistan; identify, target, and destroy al Qaeda terrorist nests in
    Afghanistan; overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime; and conduct
    reconstruction and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. Although the
    threat of terrorist attacks against the United States remains, the
    joint team--strengthened by the Air Force--has made substantial
    progress in putting terrorists on the defensive and developing the new
    security partnerships essential for a sustained GWOT.
    Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM
        The Air Force continues joint operations against Taliban remnants
    and Iraqi insurgents. At the close of 2004, we maintained nearly 31,000
    Airmen in the region--including 5,000 Air National Guardsmen and 2,500
    Air Force Reservists--and we were flying 225 sorties a day over Iraq
    and Afghanistan. Having already flown more than 250,000 sorties, the
    Total Force team of Active, Guard, and Reserve Airmen continues to
    perform aeromedical evacuation, persistent C\4\ISR from air and space,
    close air support, aerial refueling, and intertheater and intratheater
    airlift, while successfully adapting to the dynamic environment of
    asymmetric warfare.
        While certainly prominent in Major Combat Operations, rapid strike
    has continued to enhance joint warfighting during reconstruction and
    stability operations. Strikes against Taliban forces and Iraqi
    insurgents show the enduring need for strike capabilities and the
    capability of the Air Force to strike time-sensitive targets with
    minimal collateral damage. The Air Force is bolstering this capability
    with the deployment of 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions now in
    theater, development of the Small Diameter Bomb, and development of
    directed energy weapons capable of delivering precise and tailored
    effects in adverse environments.
        Not only are Airmen directly overhead in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
    Airmen from as far away as Nevada are controlling remotely piloted
    aircraft critical to persistent C\4\ISR and rapid strike missions. For
    instance, Predator aircraft are able to transmit their live video
    pictures to ground-based targeting teams that are equipped with the
    prototype Remote Operations Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) system.
    Linking rapid strike and persistent C\4\ISR to forces on the ground,
    ROVER has been used repeatedly to detect, target, and destroy
    improvised explosive devices (IEDs), mortars, rockets, and other
    insurgent activities across the region. Bolstering these capabilities
    are Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) equipped F-16s flown
    by deployed Air National Guard units. The digital cameras on the TARS
    pod allow the pilot to conduct reconnaissance while simultaneously
    providing close air support. Integrating these two missions is the
    essence of responsive reconnaissance and integral to Air Force support
    to ground forces.
        To help defeat IEDs, the Air Force has fielded Specialized
    Explosive Detection Dogs and upgraded three flying platforms that
    specifically focus on detecting and defeating IEDs. In the future, we
    will deploy IED Defeat Field Teams to further study where Air Force-
    unique systems can make an impact.
        To ensure uninterrupted sustainment of our deployed forces and
    unhindered global mobility, several initiatives are being implemented
    to enhance aircraft protection capabilities, including upgrades to
    existing aircraft defensive systems, accelerated installation of new
    systems, and improvements in software and flare dispensing patterns.
    These improvements will increase the capability to detect and defeat
    shoulder-fired missiles being used against our mobility aircraft.
        Recently, these mobility assets have been used to reduce the need
    for ground convoys on supply routes in Iraq. Flying above the IEDs and
    ambushes that challenge convoys, the use of Air Force airlifters like
    the C-130 and C-17 has reduced the number of trucks in convoys by
    nearly 350 trucks per day.
        Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also highlight the importance of
    space-based C\4\ISR capabilities to U.S. and coalition forces. These
    capabilities have become integral to effective warfighting operations
    and include precision position, navigation and timing; secure
    communications; global weather; launch and support operations;
    persistent worldwide missile warning; and intelligence gathering. OIF
    and OEF relied 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. Carrying out time-sensitive
    targeting of Iraqi leadership and other critical targets during major
    combat operations, nearly 40 percent of all munitions used in OIF were
    GPS-guided and unaffected by the driving sand storms and inclement
    weather. Holding the ultimate high ground, Air Force space
    professionals keep a constant vigil over a global battlespace--
    planning, acquiring, maintaining and operating the systems that sustain
    America's decisive advantage in space.
    Operation NOBLE EAGLE and Homeland Defense
        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, more than 37,000 fighter, aerial refueling,
    and airborne early warning sorties have been flown in defense of the
    United States, while more than 1,800 air patrols have responded to
    actual incidents and suspicious flight operations. A mission that
    leverages the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and Active Duty
    components, the Citizen Airmen of the Air National Guard have primary
    responsibility for providing alert aircraft at 17 of 18 sites.
        The Air Force has also worked extensively with joint, interagency,
    and combined organizations to improve the effectiveness of Homeland
    Defense activities. Exercises like DETERMINED PROMISE-04 and UNIFIED
    DEFENSE-04 illustrated how rapid strike, persistent C\4\ISR, and global
    mobility can be seamlessly integrated with other agencies, and prove
    critical to supporting U.S. Northern Command and the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        The Civil Air Patrol provides additional capability to Northern
    Command, federal agencies, and state and local governments in the
    Global War on Terrorism. Located throughout all 50 states, the District
    of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the Civil Air Patrol leverages the skills
    and vigilance of 64,000 non-paid volunteers in more than 1,700 units to
    bolster the Nation's defense.
    Other Contingency Operations
        In addition to operations at home and Southwest Asia, the Air Force
    supported multiple other operations around the globe in 2004.
    Complementing our permanent presence in Northeast Asia, we bolstered
    the deterrence of North Korea with the continuous deployment of six B-
    52 bomber aircraft to the American territory of Guam. The 8,400 Airmen
    stationed in South Korea alongside Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and our
    South Korean allies are critical to regional stability, and have
    maintained the United Nations armistice on the Korean peninsula for
    over 51 years.
        In the Balkans, Airmen have flown more than 27,000 sorties in
    support of Operations JOINT FORGE and JOINT GUARDIAN. These NATO-led
    operations combine joint and allied forces to implement the Dayton
    Peace Accords in Bosnia-Herzegovina and enforce the Military Technical
    Agreement in Kosovo. At the end of 2004, approximately 475 Airmen were
    supporting NATO's goal of achieving a secure and stable environment.
        Since December 1989 and throughout 2004, Airmen have been a
    critical part of the interagency fight against illegal drug and
    narcotics trafficking. Deployed along the southern United States, in
    the Caribbean, and Central and South America, eight aerostats and five
    ground-based radars provide around-the-clock monitoring of airspace.
    Operating these C\4\ISR installations, Airmen detected, monitored, and
    provided intercepts on hundreds of targets attempting to infiltrate
    U.S. airspace without proper clearance. Along with our joint and
    interagency partners, these operations resulted in hundreds of arrests
    and stopped thousands of pounds of contraband from being smuggled into
    the United States.
        Additionally, the Air Force is heavily involved in providing
    humanitarian relief to people in need around the globe. Most recently
    the Air Force deployed aircraft and Airmen to assist in relief efforts
    for the Southeast Asian countries struck by tsunamis. In the initial
    days, C-130s and KC-135s, flying 21 missions, delivered over 120 tons
    of food, water, medical supplies, vehicles, and personnel to assess
    relief assistance. In another region of the world, the Air Force
    provided airlift and logistical support to the deployment of African
    Union peacekeepers to the war torn area of Darfur in Sudan. Also,
    during recent elections in Afghanistan, we airdropped water and food to
    remote areas to help ensure a secure and smooth voting process.
        Supporting all of these world-wide operations is a robust training
    program that allows our Airmen to train like they fight. Competition
    for scarce air, land, and water resources threatens to further encroach
    onto our installations, ranges, and airspace--vital national assets for
    developing and testing new weapons, training forces, and conducting
    joint exercises. The Air Force supports legislative, regulatory, and
    management initiatives that protect Air Force operational capability
    while sustaining, restoring, and modernizing our natural
    infrastructure.
    Air and Space Expeditionary Force
        The Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) is how the Air Force
    organizes, trains, equips, and sustains forces to meet defense strategy
    requirements outlined in the National Military Strategy and Strategic
    Planning Guidance. Including the Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, and
    Air National Guard, the Air Force is divided into ten AEFs and an
    enabler force to support and sustain global expeditionary operations.
    Each AEF provides a portfolio of effects-based capabilities for the
    Combatant Commander. These capabilities are immediately available in
    two AEFs continually postured for rapid deployment. The remaining eight
    AEFs are in various stages of redeployment, rest, training, or
    deployment preparation but could rapidly deploy to a combat area if
    needed. When necessary, the full capability of the Total Force can be
    realized by surging the remaining AEFs.
        During 2004, worldwide requirements of OIF, OEF, and GWOT placed
    high demands on our Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) forces, long-
    range bombers, security forces, and other units. Due to this increased
    tempo, selected Air Force forces are still deployed at nearly twice the
    numbers that AEF policy defines as ``sustainable.'' To adapt to this
    new set of circumstances, we changed our AEF deployment length from 90
    days to 120 days, and the AEF cycle from fifteen months to twenty
    months. The greater deployment length allows greater continuity for
    expeditionary commanders in the field.
    New Triad
        The National Military Strategy impacts our strategic forces as
    well. The Department of Defense's new defense strategy of employing a
    capabilities- vs. threat-based approach to planning led to the ongoing
    transformation of the existing triad of U.S. strategic nuclear forces
    (intercontinental and sea-launched ballistic missiles and bomber
    aircraft) into a New Triad composed of a diverse portfolio of systems.
    The elements of the New Triad will contain non-nuclear and nuclear
    ``strike capabilities;'' active and passive defenses; and research and
    development and industrial infrastructure for developing, building, and
    maintaining offensive forces and defensive systems.
    Worldwide Force Protection Challenges
        The United States faces an array of asymmetric threats from
    terrorists and rogue states necessitating a new Force Protection
    concept of Integrated Base Defense. The new concept draws from recent
    lessons learned and defines a Force Protection role for every Airman as
    a defender of bases and critical assets. We are also developing a wide
    range of offensive and defensive capabilities to include new ground
    sensors, unmanned aerospace sensors, a common operating picture, and a
    command and control suite that links these sensors to remotely-operated
    weapons and robotic systems. Non-lethal weapon systems have the
    potential for bringing a revolutionary set of capabilities to
    commanders.
        Countering and defending against chemical, biological,
    radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons is
    another element of Force Protection and Integrated Base Defense. To
    prevent adversary acquisition or development of these weapons,
    neutralize their capabilities, and restore essential operations and
    services after an attack, we are implementing a Counter-CBRNE Master
    Plan. This will improve our ability to meet operational needs, while
    maximizing joint cooperation and leveraging existing institutions and
    capabilities.
                 air and space power, tomorrow through the fydp
    Base Realignment and Closure 2005
        Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 is the primary means by
    which the Air Force will optimize current infrastructure to enhance
    both warfighting capability and efficiency for the future. Taking a
    comprehensive, 20-year view, BRAC 2005 will allow the Air Force to
    realign the posture of our forces to better address the new challenges
    we face. Through creation of innovative organizational and basing
    solutions, the Air Force will facilitate joint and multi-component
    missions, reduce inefficiencies, and free up valuable resources to
    recruit quality people, modernize equipment and infrastructure, and
    develop the capabilities needed to meet 21st Century threats.
        While doing this we will remain focused on our three core
    competencies, which enable us to create the effects required on the
    battlefield of the future: Developing Airmen, Technology to
    Warfighting, and Integrating Operations. By focusing on these areas the
    Air Force has created a program through the Future Years Defense
    Program, which optimizes the return on our resources.
    Developing Airmen
        To adapt to dramatic changes in force structure and the security
    environment, we established a set of strategic goals to focus our
    personnel mission.
                Force Shaping
        We are on track to bring active duty end strength to the
    congressionally-authorized level of 359,700 by the end of fiscal 2005.
    This planned reduction shapes the future force without jeopardizing
    career field health.
        The Force Shaping plan has two phases: (1) increase voluntary
    separations and retirements, and (2) further increase voluntary
    separations while simultaneously reducing programmed accessions. Phase
    1, implemented in February 2004, was used to judge retention behavior
    and ensure a measured approach to reducing end strength. Phase 2, begun
    in May 2004, allowed more service members an opportunity to leave
    active duty. Additionally, we significantly reduced the Selective
    Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program from 146 to 62 enlisted skills,
    resulting in a significant decrease in first-term reenlistment rates,
    and we continue to review further reduction of SRB skills.
        Other Force Shaping initiatives include the PALACE CHASE program--
    early separation from Active Duty to serve with the Air National Guard
    or Air Force Reserve--waiving of active duty service commitments, and
    resurrection of the Career Job Reservation Program to correct skill
    imbalances and re-train first-term Airmen into needed skills.
    Additionally, we took advantage of the statutory authority that allows
    2 percent of colonels and lieutenant colonels with two years time-in-
    grade to retire in grade instead of waiting the normal three years; and
    some Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps graduates may now go
    directly into the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve.
        In fiscal 2004, we lowered accession goals by approximately 3,000.
    In fiscal 2005, we continued to lower our accession goals and have
    temporarily limited enlisted accessions to only the 58 most critical
    combat and combat support skills.
        The results of our Force Shaping efforts are positive, facilitating
    the migration of personnel into critical shortage specialties while
    reducing manpower to ensure we meet authorized end strength
    requirements by the end of fiscal 2005.
                Rebalancing the Force
        As we return to our authorized end strength, relief is flowing to
    ``overstressed'' career fields. This is a multi-step process, but our
    guiding principle is simple--we will properly size and shape the force
    to meet the needs of the AEF. We are drawing down prudently,
    designating specialties and specific year groups within those
    specialties where we have more people than we need. At the same time,
    we are correcting our skill imbalances by realigning manpower and
    expanding training pipelines.
        We are also taking a hard look at where our people serve. We have
    Airmen serving outside the Air Force who don't deploy as part of an Air
    Expeditionary Force. They serve in joint and defense agency positions,
    some of which require uniformed people; however, others do not. Through
    military-to-civilian conversions and Competitive Sourcing initiatives,
    we are returning these Airmen ``to the fold.''
        The Guard and Reserve play a critical role in this endeavor. Today,
    25 percent of the air expeditionary packages are composed of Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve volunteers. As we take steps to
    ensure the long-term health of our Active Duty forces, we must do the
    same for our Citizen Airmen.
                Recruiting/Retention
        While reducing accessions is a tool currently being used to bring
    the force down to authorized levels, it is imperative that we continue
    to renew and replenish the ranks with targeted recruiting. For fiscal
    2005, we plan to access nearly 19,000 enlisted members and just over
    5,000 officers--a 44 percent reduction from normal enlisted recruiting
    levels and a slightly lower level of officers compared to fiscal 2004.
        As outlined under Force Shaping, a significant one-year reduction
    in our recruiting goal is part of a deliberate effort to reduce force
    size without jeopardizing long-term health. A one-year reduction will
    create a temporary decrease offset by the number of personnel accessed
    in preceding and subsequent years. We are committed to returning to
    normal recruiting targets as quickly as possible. Continued
    congressional support of our recruiting and marketing programs will
    greatly enhance the Air Force's competitiveness in a dynamic job
    market.
        A critical element for success is the ability to offer bonuses and
    incentives where we have traditionally experienced shortfalls. To
    protect this valuable resource we ensure active senior leadership
    management, including semi-annual reviews of which career specialties,
    and which year groups within those specialties, are eligible for
    bonuses. Congressional support for these programs, along with increases
    in pay and benefits and quality-of-life initiatives, has greatly helped
    us retain Airmen and their families.
                Personnel Service Delivery Transformation
        To achieve the Secretary of Defense's objective of shifting
    resources ``from bureaucracy to battlefield,'' personnel services are
    being overhauled. Our Personnel Service Delivery Transformation
    dramatically modernizes the processes, organizations, and technology by
    which we support Airmen and their commanders. Routine personnel
    transactions, for instance, may now be done ``on-line.''
        As a result, we deliver higher-quality personnel services with
    greater access, speed, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency. We
    programmed the resulting manpower savings to other compelling Air Force
    needs over the next six years. This initiative enhances our ability to
    acquire, train, educate, and deliver Airmen with the needed skills,
    knowledge, and experience to accomplish Air Force missions.
                National Security Personnel System
        Our civilian workforce will go through a significant transformation
    as well with implementation of the Department of Defense National
    Security Personnel System (NSPS). NSPS is a simplified and more
    flexible civilian personnel system that will improve the way we hire,
    assign, compensate, and reward our valuable civilian employees. This
    modern, agile human resource system will be responsive to the national
    security environment, while preserving employee protections and
    benefits, as well as the core values of the civil service.
    Implementation will begin as early as July 2005.
        NSPS design and development has been a broad-based, participative
    process including employees, supervisors and managers, unions, employee
    advocacy groups, and various public interest groups. Employees slated
    for conversion to the new system will be included in groupings called
    Spirals. Spiral One will include approximately 85,400 General Schedule
    and Acquisition Demonstration Project, U.S.-based Air Force civilian
    employees and will be rolled out in three phases over an 18-month
    period. The labor relations provisions of NSPS will be implemented
    across the Department this summer as well. NSPS is the most
    comprehensive new Federal personnel system in more than 50 years and a
    key component in the Department's achievement of a total force
    structure.
                Culture of Airmen
        We completed an Air Force-wide assessment of our sexual assault
    prevention and response capabilities, knowing we were not where we
    needed to be in addressing this societal problem that has serious
    readiness implications. A Campaign Plan was approved, and we are
    implementing specific initiatives to better understand the problem of
    sexual assault, do everything within our ability to prevent it, and
    prepare ourselves to provide consistent and continuing care for victims
    when it occurs.
        In response to an increased suicide rate among Airmen, we
    reemphasized, and continue to stress, the need for Airmen to look after
    one another. Commanders and co-workers are rethinking the way Airmen
    interact with one another, calling attention to behavioral indicators
    and risk factors associated with suicide. Safety and risk management
    are also being emphasized to reduce the number of accident-related
    fatalities. We are weaving this mindset into the very fabric of our
    culture.
        All Airmen have a responsibility to get involved, pay attention and
    ensure the health and well-being of their wingman. It's not a program,
    it's a mindset; a cultural shift designed to take better care of our
    most valuable resource--our people.
                Air Reserve Component (Air Force Reserve and Air National
                        Guard)
        Recruiting and retaining quality service members are top priorities
    for the Air Force Reserve. Despite the strains mobilization places on
    the personal and professional lives of Reserve members, volunteerism
    remains high. In fiscal 2004, and for the last four years, the Air
    Force Reserve exceeded its recruiting goal. Despite the long-term
    effects of high operations and personnel tempo, Air Force Reserve end-
    strength was within 0.7 percent of fiscal 2004 congressionally-mandated
    requirements.
        Reduced success in attracting military Air Force members who are
    separating from Active Duty has steered the Air Force Reserve toward
    recruitment and accession of non-prior service members. To meet the
    resulting increased training demand, 4,000 training slots per year are
    now allocated and funded for the Air Force Reserve. In addition, the
    Air Force Reserve is taking advantage of the previously mentioned
    PALACE CHASE program, which allows Active Duty members the opportunity
    to move to the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard. These
    experienced members are then placed into critical career skills.
        Complementing the Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard plays a
    vital role in support of the Homeland Defense mission and force
    transformation. The ability of the Air National Guard to achieve
    recruiting and retention goals through fiscal 2006 will help determine
    how well the Air Force assumes new missions and supports Homeland
    Defense.
        As the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard continue to surge
    to meet operational requirements, we are examining existing law and
    policy that govern enlisted incentives and related compensation with an
    eye toward identifying changes that will encourage volunteerism. The
    reserve enlisted bonus program is a major contributor to attracting and
    retaining both unit and individual mobilization augmentee members in
    critical career fields. To enhance retention, we are ensuring relevant
    compensation statutes reflect the growing reliance on the Air Force
    Reserve and Air National Guard to accomplish Air Force missions. We
    continue to explore enhanced bonus authorities, which will provide the
    flexibility to target our most pressing needs.
        In addition, the Aviation Continuation Pay, the Career Enlisted
    Flyers Incentive Pay, and Aircrew Incentive Pay continue to be offered
    to retain our rated officer and enlisted personnel. We expanded the Air
    Force Reserve Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) program by including
    an additional six career fields to enhance recruiting and retention,
    improve program alignment, and provide parity to Air Force Reserve
    members. The expansion authorizes the payment of SDAP to a reservist
    qualifying in the same skill and location as their Active Duty
    counterpart.
        The Air Force has made great strides in increasing education
    benefits for our Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members,
    offering 100 percent tuition assistance for individuals pursuing an
    undergraduate degree and continuing to pay 75 percent for graduate
    degrees. In addition, we appreciate the President proposing and
    Congress enacting enhanced Montgomery GI Bill benefits for reserve and
    Guard members who have served lengthy deployments.
        The fiscal 2005 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) made
    permanent several authorities providing enhanced Health Care/TRICARE
    benefits for Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members. For
    members with delayed-effective-date orders to serve on active duty in
    support of a contingency operation for more than 30 days, the new
    legislation permanently authorizes TRICARE eligibility for up to 90
    days prior to the member's activation date for eligible members and
    their families. Additionally, the NDAA extended the Transitional
    Assistance Management Program benefit period from 60 and 120 days to
    180 days for eligible members and their families.
                Training
        Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) is the cornerstone for Air
    Force training transformation. It is a readiness initiative to train
    warfighters as they expect to fight using simulation and high-fidelity
    architecture to link training at dispersed locations. DMO will reduce
    travel costs and operations tempo while providing mission rehearsal in
    an operationally realistic environment to maintain combat readiness and
    provide support to operations. It will prepare and assess Air and Space
    Expeditionary Forces and prepare AOC weapon systems, including Joint
    Force Air Component Commanders, for real-world missions. As an
    integration effort, DMO will leverage existing and emerging programs
    and technologies to fill gaps in total team training, rehearsal, and
    operations support.
        Due to the continuing high operations tempo, the Air Force is
    filling over 2,500 positions in 20 different combat support skills for
    the U.S. Army in deployed locations--one of those skills is combat
    convoy operations. As a result, we established the Basic Combat Convoy
    Course to supplement Army training. This comprehensive, self-contained
    course emphasizes small unit leadership, teamwork, weapons training,
    and tactical convoy operations, greatly improving convoy operations and
    personnel survivability. It also reduced total training time in Kuwait
    from approximately six weeks to one.
                Housing and Military Construction
        Through military construction and housing privatization, we are
    providing quality homes faster than ever. Over the next two years, we
    will renovate or replace nearly 36,000 homes through privatization, and
    an additional 11,000 homes through military construction.
        Still, Airmen primarily live in communities near our installations.
    Basic Allowance for Housing increases have reduced their average out-
    of-pocket costs over the past few years, and will eliminate out-of-
    pocket costs altogether in 2005, allowing greater flexibility for
    Airmen who reside off base.
        Investment in dormitories continues to accelerate in order to
    provide superior housing to our unaccompanied members--evidenced by
    nearly 4,400 dormitory rooms programmed for funding over the next four
    years. Approximately 75 percent of these will address existing
    inadequate dormitory conditions. Our new ``Dorms-4-Airmen'' standard is
    designed to increase camaraderie, social interaction, and
    accountability by providing four single-occupancy bedrooms/bathrooms
    with a common kitchen and living area in each module. The combination
    of the new standard and the Air Force's unit integrity assignment
    policy provides an excellent platform to increase interaction within
    the same unit. Finally, the remaining dormitory program jumpstarts a
    buy-out of inadequate ``pipeline'' dormitories--those dorms that house
    young enlisted students during their initial technical training.
    Pipeline dormitory standards provide a large living area for two
    students, two walk-in closets, a bathroom, and a separate vanity for
    each occupant. All substandard dorms will be replaced by 2009. Knowing
    the Air Force provides for a family's housing needs allows every Airman
    to focus on the mission.
        Airmen's performance and morale is directly influenced by quality
    work centers as well. Therefore, we've placed significant emphasis on
    recapitalizing and improving work facilities. We've focused investment
    in training facilities to ensure a quality technical and mission-
    oriented learning environment. Similarly, we've implemented a plan to
    ensure all fitness centers meet current Air Force standards by 2011.
    Finally, we've continued our focus on providing quality childcare
    facilities.
                Battlefield Airmen
        Airmen are engaged beyond the air base; bringing technology to
    warfighting on the ground 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. Because Air Force personnel are an integral part of
    the battlespace, we are also identifying common training requirements
    for these Airmen.
        We need to organize Battlefield Airmen for maximum effectiveness in
    the modern battlespace. In addition, we must train Battlefield Airmen
    in the skills required to maximize airpower, and standardize that
    training across those specialties with different Battlefield Airmen
    skills. Finally, we want to equip our Battlefield Airmen with improved
    and standardized equipment for missions in the forward and deep
    battlespace.
        This will expand commanders' abilities to employ battlefield
    airpower experts who can introduce unequaled accuracy, responsiveness,
    flexibility, and persistence into designated air operations.
        Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs), a subset of Battlefield
    Airmen, direct the action of combat aircraft engaged in close air
    support and other offensive air operations from a forward position. For
    the first time, JTACs will be recognized across the Department of
    Defense as capable and authorized to perform terminal attack control in
    accordance with a joint standard. The Joint Close Air Support Executive
    Steering Committee directed the drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement
    defining the qualifications, certifications, and currencies these JTACs
    must possess and maintain.
        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 the ability to do such things as designate targets
    several kilometers away. We must 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. To that end, the
    Integrated Air-Ground Imaging Initiative enables the A-10 to send
    digital targeting information instead of lengthy voice briefings;
    provides a LITENING or Sniper Targeting Pod video down link to the
    JTAC; and equips our JTACs with a multi-channel video receiver. This
    equipment will increase situational awareness, assist in combat
    identification, maximize first-attack success, shorten the kill-chain,
    and ultimately provide better support to ground forces.
    Technology-to-Warfighting
                Capabilities-based Concepts of Operation
        The Air Force has established a capabilities-based approach to both
    war planning and force development, allowing focused investments on
    those capabilities needed to achieve the battlespace effects required
    by the joint warfighter. Our capabilities-based approach frees us from
    platform-centric force planning, leading to new ways of thinking and
    innovative combinations of systems.
        The Air Force has developed seven concepts of operation (CONOPS)--
    six operational and one supporting foundational concept--for
    capabilities-based planning. The CONOPS define the effects we can
    produce across the span of joint tasks we may be tasked to perform, and
    help us identify those capabilities an expeditionary air force will
    need to achieve the desired battlespace effects. They also provide an
    operational context for determining how good our capability levels need
    to be and assessing how close we are to that objective.
      --Homeland Security CONOPS leverages Air Force capabilities with
            joint and interagency efforts to prevent, protect, and respond
            to threats against our homeland.
      --Space and Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
            Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) CONOPS
            encompasses the integration of manned, unmanned, and space
            systems to provide persistent situational awareness, space
            control, and decision-quality information.
      --Global Mobility CONOPS provides the planning, command and control,
            and operations capabilities to enable timely and effective
            projection, employment, and sustainment of U.S. power in
            support of U.S. global interests.
      --Global Strike CONOPS employs joint power projection capabilities to
            engage anti-access and high-value targets, gain access to
            denied battlespace, and maintain that operational access for
            required joint/coalition follow-on operations.
      --Global Persistent Attack CONOPS provides a spectrum of capabilities
            from major combat to peacekeeping and sustainment operations.
            Global Persistent Attack assumes that once access conditions
            are established via the Global Strike CONOPS, there will be a
            need for persistent and sustained air, space, and information
            operations.
      --Nuclear Response CONOPS provides the deterrent ``umbrella'' under
            which conventional forces operate and, should deterrence fail,
            provides options for a scalable response.
      --The Agile Combat Support CONOPS details the capability to create,
            protect, and sustain Air and Space Forces across the full
            spectrum of military operations. It is the foundational,
            crosscutting, and distinctive capability that enables Air Force
            Operational Concepts.
        The CONOPS approach articulates operational capabilities that will
    prevail in combat and avert technological surprises. Through
    capabilities-based planning, we will continue to invest in our core
    competency of bringing technology to the warfighter, which will
    maintain our technical advantage and keep our air and space
    capabilities up-to-date.
                Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment
        The Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA) process is the
    starting point for Air Force force planning and capabilities
    development. It replaced an outdated threat-based review process that
    focused on platforms instead of warfighting effects and the
    capabilities needed to achieve them. The CRRA requires a focus on
    capabilities and fosters development of innovative solution sets. The
    CRRA uses our six operational concepts and the foundational Agile
    Combat Support concept to examine and assess our Air Force capabilities
    now and in the future.
        During the CRRA cycle, Risk Assessment Teams, composed of experts
    drawn from all specialties in the Air Force and supported by models,
    simulations, and other analytical tools, consider the requirements of
    the CONOPS. They review existing and planned programs, Science and
    Technology activities, and non-materiel factors. They determine the Air
    Force's ability to deal with an adverse event and the impact on
    achieving the joint warfighting effects if the Service fails to provide
    the capability. Any shortfalls are screened against documented Lessons
    Learned and Combatant Commander Integrated Priority Lists.
        The CRRA provides senior Air Force leaders an operational-,
    capabilities-, and risk-based focus for investment decision-making. It
    uses operational warfighting effects as the drivers for Air Force
    resource allocation, while also protecting public health and natural
    resources.
                Recapitalization/Modernization
        The number one challenge for the Air Force is the need to
    recapitalize our aging systems. For example, our aircraft fleet now
    averages 23 years old. To determine the viability of these aging
    fleets, we chartered the Air Force Fleet Viability Board (AF FVB) in
    2004 to establish a continuous, repeatable process for conducting fleet
    assessments. The AF FVB completed its first assessment, of the C-5A, in
    July 2004, and is currently studying the 43-year-old KC-135 fleet.
        The principles we applied this year during the CRRA process ensured
    sufficient readiness to support the Global War on Terrorism while
    transforming the force and maintaining an acceptable level of risk. We
    have proposed recapitalization and modernization project funding
    necessary to extend today's legacy forces while bridging to required
    future systems.
        Our primary modernization program is the F/A-22 Raptor. The F/A-
    22's revolutionary low observable technology, supercruise (Mach 1.5
    without afterburner), integrated avionics, and exceptional
    maneuverability will guarantee America's air dominance and joint force
    freedom of operation. The F/A-22 program is transitioning from
    development to full rate production and fielding, where the aircraft
    will join an integrated air and space force capable of responsive and
    decisive global engagement.
        The program entered Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E)
    in April 2004 to evaluate its operational effectiveness and
    suitability. Air-to-air capabilities were successfully demonstrated and
    initial air-to-ground capabilities were demonstrated with successful
    testing of the Joint Direct Attack Munition. In parallel with IOT&E, F/
    A-22 aircraft deliveries continue at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida,
    where the first cadre of operational F/A-22 pilots is training. The
    27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, is on track
    to establish Initial Operational Capability for the F/A-22 in December
    2005.
        Complementing the tremendous capabilities of the F/A-22 is the F-35
    Joint Strike Fighter, an important element of the Joint Warfighter's
    Tactical Aircraft Modernization plan. For the Air Force, it will
    recapitalize today's F-16 and A-10 combat capabilities. Specifically,
    it will provide affordable and survivable precision engagement and
    global persistent attack capabilities. Optimized for all-weather
    performance, the F-35 will destroy an enemy's ability to attack or
    defend. In 2004, the F-35 program successfully addressed early design
    maturity challenges. The Service Acquisition Executive responsibility
    also switched from the Navy to the Air Force. In this capacity, we will
    continue to develop the three basic aircraft variants and coordinate
    the interests of the Navy and Marines, along with our numerous
    international partners.
        Remotely Piloted Aircraft have demonstrated their combat value in
    the Global War on Terrorism. The RQ-1/MQ-1 Predator continues to
    transform warfighting; providing persistent intelligence, surveillance,
    and reconnaissance; target acquisition; and strike capabilities against
    time sensitive targets. Used in every Air Force operation since 1995,
    Predator has amassed over 100,000 flying hours. Today, with U.S.-based
    flight and mission control, Predator is truly providing a revolutionary
    leap in how we provide military capability. Equipped with an electro-
    optical, infrared, and laser designator sensor, and armed with Hellfire
    missiles, Predator not only shortened the sensor-to-shooter timeline--
    the sensor is now the shooter.
        We are developing the ability to operate multiple aircraft from a
    single ground station--in effect, multiplying our overall combat
    effectiveness over the battlefield. We are also developing and
    deploying a larger, more capable, and more lethal variant--the MQ-9
    Predator B. The MQ-9 Predator B will employ robust sensors to
    automatically find, fix, track, and target critical emerging time
    sensitive targets.
        By contrast, Global Hawk is a high altitude, long endurance,
    remotely piloted aircraft that provides robust surveillance and
    reconnaissance capabilities. Through the innovative use of synthetic
    aperture radar and electro-optical and infrared sensors, Global Hawk
    provides the warfighter unrelenting observation of intelligence targets
    in night, day, and adverse weather. Since its first flight in 1998,
    Global Hawk has flown over 5,000 hours--over half of that time in
    combat.
        Global Hawk provides superior intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance data while deployed in support of the Global War on
    Terrorism. While cruising at extremely high altitudes, Global Hawk can
    collect information on spot targets and survey large geographic areas,
    providing military decision-makers the most current information about
    enemy location, resources, and personnel.
        Dissemination and ground support exploitation systems consistently
    deliver timely intelligence to bring immediate advantage to combat
    operations. Despite its developmental status, Global Hawk is in
    constant demand by Combatant Commanders.
        The C-17 production program continues to be a success story for the
    joint warfighting community. We are on schedule to receive the 180th of
    these force multipliers in 2008. In concert with C-5 modernization
    programs, C-17 acquisition is the critical enabler for meeting
    established airlift requirements in support of the current force-
    planning construct. Currently, the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary
    of Defense, and Air Mobility Command are reviewing mobility
    requirements in light of the new National Military Strategy and the
    Global War on Terrorism. This Mobility Capabilities Study will provide
    a basis for determining future wartime airlift requirements. In the
    meantime, the C-17 has been the airlifter of choice in contingency
    operations. During Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, C-17s airdropped over
    two million humanitarian rations. In Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the C-17
    performed the largest troop airdrop since Operation JUST CAUSE in
    Panama, opening the Northern Front during initial operations.
        Tomorrow's enabling capabilities will be hosted on a variety of
    systems to include the E-10A aircraft. The E-10A is being developed to
    identify and track enemy, friendly, and neutral forces, as well as non-
    combatants. It will provide persistent intelligence, surveillance,
    reconnaissance, and environmental data, and fuse multi-source
    information into a common operating picture. In addition, it will find,
    fix, track, and target low-flying cruise missiles and moving surface
    targets. The E-10A program and its Multi-Platform Radar Technology
    Insertion Program, in conjunction with other weapon system platforms,
    will give the Combatant Commander a seamless picture of the battlespace
    and an integrated defense against the cruise missile threat. This
    capability allows friendly forces to respond to time-sensitive
    opportunities with decisive force.
        The Air Force has also emphasized the Persistent Ground Attack
    mission for the next-generation Joint Unmanned Combat Air System
    capability demonstration program. This system will undergo an
    operational assessment in the 2007 to 2010 timeframe.
        We must also recapitalize our aging tanker aircraft fleet. Based on
    the completion of the KC-135 Recapitalization Analysis of Alternatives,
    the air refueling portion of the Mobility Capabilities Study, and the
    results of the Air Force Fleet Viability Board study, the Air Force
    anticipates Department of Defense direction to execute the KC-135
    recapitalization program of record. This program will support both the
    2005 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized purchase of
    up to 100 tanker aircraft through a multi-year contract, and the 2004
    Defense Appropriations Act that established a $100 million tanker
    replacement transfer fund.
        Capabilities-driven modernization and recapitalization efforts
    continue on space systems as well; as we modernize our critical
    constellations and capabilities across the spectrum of navigation,
    weather, communication, missile warning, launch, surveillance, and
    ground systems.
        The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) fields two launch
    designs to provide assured access to space for government systems. The
    Transformational Communications Satellite will employ Internet Protocol
    networks and high-bandwidth lasers in space to dramatically increase
    warfighter communications connectivity. Modernization of Global
    Positioning System (GPS) 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 Air Force
    is developing the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System, which offers next-generation meteorological
    capability. We are well on the way to deployment of the Space-Based
    Infrared System, a transformational leap in capability over our aging
    Defense Support Program satellites. The Space Radar effort has been
    refocused on developing a system that meets the needs of both military
    and intelligence community users. Each of these systems support
    critical C\4\ISR capabilities that give the Joint Force Commander
    increased technological and asymmetric advantages.
        Space superiority efforts are enabled by comprehensive space
    situation awareness (SSA) and defensive and offensive counterspace
    capabilities. 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 command and control network and are developing
    increased protection for our satellites and space-based services to
    ensure the capabilities are there in time of battle. We also recently
    fielded the counter-communications system to deny these same services
    to our adversaries. A well-balanced architecture will enable execution
    of an effective space superiority strategy.
        Our Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan calls for major
    transformation in financial and infrastructure capitalization. To
    support this plan, the Air Force increased funding in fiscal 2004-2009
    for depot facilities and equipment modernization. We also began a
    significant push to require weapon system managers to establish their
    product support and depot maintenance programs early in the acquisition
    cycle, and to plan and program the necessary investment dollars
    required for capacity and capability. Additionally, we are partnering
    with private industry to adopt technologies to meet capability
    requirements. The result--enhanced warfighter support.
        Finally, improvements to our air and space systems will require
    improvements in our foundational support systems. Deteriorating
    airfields, hangars, waterlines, electrical networks, and air traffic
    control approach and landing systems are just some of the
    infrastructure elements needing immediate attention. Our investment
    strategy focuses on three simultaneous steps: disposing of excess
    facilities, sustaining our facilities and infrastructure, and
    establishing a sustainable investment program for future modernization.
                Expectation Management/Spiral Development/Systems
                        Engineering
        To improve effectiveness in providing technology to the warfighter,
    we've enacted several new acquisition policies. Expectation management,
    spiral development, and renewed emphasis on systems engineering will
    eliminate technological surprises and reduce weapon system delivery
    cycle times.
        Expectation management means better collaboration between the
    warfighting and acquisition communities during the life cycle of a
    weapon system. At least yearly, general officers from the major
    commands and acquisition community will formally review the cost,
    schedule, and performance of acquisition programs. Beginning with frank
    discussion about the ``art of the possible,'' these sessions will
    subsequently inform decision makers about the ramifications of evolving
    requirements and funding changes.
        With a spiral development acquisition process, we expect to deliver
    a baseline combat capability to the warfighter faster than a process
    which focuses solely on a ``100 percent solution.'' This approach
    increases flexibility to respond to the ever-changing nature of
    external threats and resource fluctuations. Building on a solid systems
    engineering foundation, we expect to maximize improvements in
    communication and development strategy, paying dividends in
    transitioning technology to warfighting faster, and at reduced cost.
        Systems engineering ensures that contractor-proposed solutions are
    both consistent with sound engineering principles and are spiral
    capable. It is the chief means by which we can hedge against technology
    risk. We must have the capability to proceed smoothly from one spiral
    development effort to the next, capturing as much capability as current
    technology and funding can produce. Under the direction of the Service
    Acquisition Executive, Milestone Decision Authorities will now review a
    program's proposed approach to systems engineering prior to approving
    Acquisition Strategy Plans. Indeed, systems engineering performance is
    so critical to our capability to transition technology to the
    warfighter that it is included among contractor incentives. Many of the
    above approaches are already in use.
        In our space system acquisition, we will continue to emphasize the
    transition from ``cost as the primary driver'' to ``mission success as
    the primary driver.'' We will also continue to stress the importance of
    budgeting to the most probable cost--with realistic reserves--and the
    value of independent cost assessments, independent technical
    assessments, program assessments, and reviews. Maintaining sufficient
    reserves is essential to effectively executing these challenging
    National Security Space Programs.
                Transforming Business Process
        By leveraging the availability of global information, we are
    achieving significant operational advantages. All Air Force CONOPs rely
    heavily on critical information resources that are available ``on the
    network'' and delivered through a net-centric operating environment
    that is robust, secure, and available. To maintain information
    superiority, the Air Force must target a common infrastructure and
    fully leverage enterprise services and shared capabilities. To ensure
    the most efficient infrastructure, we are identifying enterprise-wide
    information resource solutions. These solutions are designed to deliver
    and implement efficiencies, which allow us to accelerate horizontal
    information integration, reduce information exchange barriers, reduce
    the total cost of information delivery, and shift resources to support
    warfighter operations and weapon system modernization.
        For example, we reduced operating costs over the last two years by
    consolidating our networks and servers that provide Information
    Technology (IT) services. More importantly, networks are more stable
    with increased uptime and lower failure rates. We have improved our
    security with a better computer defense posture and are able to deploy
    patches and updates to the field quickly, resulting in fewer successful
    intrusions and denial of service incidents. In addition, the stand up
    of the Air Force Network Operations and Security Center will advance
    our consolidation efforts and real-time monitoring of performance,
    configuration control, and security posture.
        The GeoBase program provides standardized installation mapping and
    visualization support to Airmen through deployment of integrated aerial
    photography and geospatial data layers. These IT products support the
    joint warfighter common operating picture, minimize wasteful and
    potentially dangerous redundant data collection efforts, and enable
    cross-service situational awareness and decision-making capabilities.
        IT Portfolio Management ensures IT investments align with Air Force
    priorities and produce measurable results. Annual Air Force-wide
    portfolio assessment ensures scarce resources are managed through the
    Capital Planning Investment Control processes: select, control, and
    evaluate. Senior leadership support of Portfolio Management enables the
    Air Force to gain greater visibility into resources from an IT
    enterprise perspective.
        Likewise, we are transforming financial management by procuring and
    implementing a modern commercial-off-the-shelf accounting system that
    will produce accurate, reliable, and timely information. We are also
    streamlining and centralizing our customer service organizations and
    processes to invest more resources towards value-added demands while
    reducing the cost of transaction-oriented tasks. The result will be a
    smaller, but more efficient organization with enhanced financial
    management skills that can partner with stakeholders to make informed
    financial decisions based upon real-time information.
                Department of Defense Teleport Program
        The DOD Teleport program is the expansion of Defense Satellite
    Communications System's Standardized Tactical Entry Point (STEP)
    program. Teleport builds on the existing STEP program concept and was
    approved for initial development in 1998. Seven STEP sites have been
    selected to be upgraded to six Teleports: Defense Information Systems
    Network Northwest, Virginia; Fort Buckner, Japan; Wahiawa, Hawaii; Camp
    Roberts, California; Lago di Patria, Italy; and Ramstein Air Base/
    Landstuhl, Germany (combined Teleport site). Teleport extends services
    to the deployed user, providing secure and non-secure telephone
    service; secure and non-secure Internet Protocol routing; and video
    teleconferencing through worldwide satellite coverage between 65
    degrees North and 65 degrees South latitudes. DOD Teleport provides
    these services through a variety of satellite communication systems,
    including the use of commercial satellites.
                Air and Space Operations Center Weapon System (AOC WS)
        The AOC WS is the focal point where command and control of all air
    and space power is harnessed to deliver combat effects to the
    warfighter. To make this center more effective, we made it a weapon
    system--and we man it and train like it's a weapon system: certified
    and standardized. We've injected the technology to increase machine-to-
    machine connectivity by developing the software and procedures to
    enable information fusion and accelerate the decider-to-shooter loop.
    We expect to have all five of our AOC weapon systems (known as
    Falconers) fully operational by fiscal 2006.
    Integrating Operations
        The Air Force provides a global presence and response capability
    for the National Military Strategy that gives warfighters timely and
    reliable access to all human, materiel and information resources. With
    our expeditionary approach to warfighting, we are relying more heavily
    on global operational support processes and extensive reachback--the
    ability to support overseas operations from stateside locations. We are
    modernizing these processes and related systems.
        Key to this modernization is the establishment of common and
    interoperable capabilities such as a single Air Force Portal and data
    repository within the classified and unclassified domains. Over the
    past 18 months, we have designed and implemented the Global Combat
    Support System-Air Force program--a set of capabilities that support
    our vision and objectives. Using these capabilities, we have rapidly
    integrated legacy and newly developed applications and services, drawn
    information from global sources to provide a composite view of
    information, and eliminated the costly requirement for each program to
    purchase and support unique hardware and system software.
                Operational Support Modernization Program
        The Air Force's Operational Support (OS) transformation is a seven-
    to ten-year journey. By focusing on effectiveness and contribution to
    warfighting effects, we can identify the early steps in this
    transformation journey, and accelerate the delivery of changes that
    contribute to the core mission of the Air Force.
        In May 2004, a Commanders' Integrated Product Team (CIPT) issued
    the Operational Support Modernization Program (OSMP) Flight Plan. The
    plan identified four OS critical processes--Deployment Management,
    Operational Response, Agile Sustainment, and Focused OS Command and
    Control. The plan identified three enablers of OS transformation--
    providing Shared Authoritative Data, executing an Integrated Workflow,
    and providing a Common Operational Support Picture.
        Money has been set aside from fiscal 2005 to fiscal 2009 to fund
    modernization and transformation efforts under the Operational Support
    Modernization Initiatives (OSMI). This venture capital funding provides
    seed money for innovative ideas, allowing organizations to accelerate
    delivery of capabilities to the warfighter to improve effectiveness.
        In 2004, the CIPT established organizations that have captured a
    significant portion of the operational support enterprise architecture;
    coordinated the OSMI-04 analysis and decision process; developed a
    draft version of the OS Concept of Operations for Business
    Modernization; and initiated a ``Lean'' reengineering process within
    the OS community while establishing the foundation for the cooperation
    and coordination of Business Modernization efforts among the Air Force
    Domains and major commands. The present Lean efforts focus on three OS
    critical processes: AEF Deployment Management, OS Command & Control,
    and Full Spectrum Threat Response, and are aimed at the needs of the
    warfighter.
        In 2005, the CIPT expects to realize the initial benefits of the
    OSMP Flight Plan, including managing the OS processes and portfolio,
    fielding initial capabilities, beginning horizontal integration,
    increasing breadth of efforts, and engineering additional critical
    processes. Over the long term, CIPT hopes to institutionalize
    capabilities-based operational support.
        OS modernization promotes Air Force-wide transformation efforts,
    ensuring a cross-functional, cross-major command, enterprise approach
    with the goal of a fast flexible, agile, horizontally integrated OS
    process and system infrastructure.
        Likewise, warfighters and decision-makers are dependent on
    information generated and shared across networks worldwide. Successful
    provision of warfighting integration requires an enterprise approach of
    total information cycle activities including people, processes, and
    technology. To best leverage current and emerging technologies with
    warfighting operational and legal requirements, we are establishing a
    new organization in 2005, Networks & Warfighting Integration-Chief
    Information Officer (SAF/NWI-CIO). This new organization will absorb
    and consolidate the Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration,
    Chief Information Officer, and Communications Directorate within the
    Secretariat. The organization will be led by an active duty lieutenant
    general.
        Our logistics transformation provides a recent example of these
    transformation efforts. While current logistics operations are
    effective, sustainment costs are rising. In fiscal 2003, the Air Force
    spent over $27.5 billion in operations and sustainment of weapon
    systems and support equipment. The costs will continue to escalate
    unless current logistics processes and associated information systems
    are improved.
        The Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st Century (eLog21) Campaign
    is the Air Force's logistics transformation plan, and it is essential
    to our overall Air Force Transformation program. The eLog21 goals are
    straightforward: a 20 percent increase in equipment availability by
    2009 and a 10 percent reduction of annual operations and support costs
    by fiscal 2011. The savings gained through eLog21 will provide the
    resources to support our warfighters by getting the right equipment to
    the right place, at the right time, and at the right price.
        At the core of this effort is a comprehensive examination of the
    core processes used to support warfighters. A few years ago, Air Force
    Materiel Command began a comprehensive process improvement effort
    called ``Lean'' within our three Air Logistics Centers. ``Lean''
    produced, and will continue to produce, substantial results. For
    example, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, freed up 20,000 square feet of
    valuable industrial floor space to support expanded activities. We seek
    to expand this transformational approach to base level maintenance,
    installation support, and training activities.
        There are many other facets of eLog21 that will leverage these
    improvements: expanding the regional repair concept we have employed in
    many deployed areas; streamlining the supply chain through better
    collaboration with vendors; using commodity councils that are
    responsible for managing the purchasing of weapon system components;
    and leveraging the power of information technology through enterprise
    resource planning, known as the Expeditionary Combat Support System.
        Ultimately, eLog21 is about our people. The most important factor
    will be our ability to tap into the ideas and energy of the thousands
    of logisticians who keep our Air Force operating every day. It is not
    just a staff project or a new information technology. It is a team of
    Airmen developing new concepts in global mobility.

                     SHAPING TOMORROW'S AIR AND SPACE POWER

    Future Total Force
        As we move into the 21st century, the Air Force faces increasing
    modernization and recapitalization challenges, increasingly hard to
    define adversaries, and constrained budget realities. While we possess
    weapon systems to meet today's challenges and are investing in cutting
    edge technology and highly capable, highly trained personnel, we must
    make transformational changes to maximize the capability these advances
    provide. To accomplish this, the Air Force has developed a modified
    force structure and new organizational construct--the Future Total
    Force (FTF).
        FTF provides the Air Force the capability and organizational
    flexibility to address the near-term challenges of aging systems and
    emerging missions. Furthermore, FTF will increase the Air Force's
    ability to deploy in support of combat while maintaining a credible
    force to continue necessary stateside training missions and Homeland
    Defense.
        In the future, the Air Force will shift investment from
    ``traditional'' combat forces with single mission capabilities to
    multi-role forces, and aggressively divest itself of legacy systems.
    The result is a force structure with expanded capability to combat
    irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive threats, while maintaining the
    capability to combat ``traditional'' threats.
        This smaller but more capable force will provide for modernization
    and recapitalization of selected weapon systems, allowing us to commit
    more resources to networked and integrated joint enablers. Overall,
    this modified force structure increases support to the joint
    warfighter. With more airlift and aerial refueling capability, more
    capable space constellations, persistent air-breathing ISR, and new
    ways to think about close air support, the future Air Force will
    provide more of the capabilities demanded by the joint force.
        As part of this overall effort, the Air Force has developed an
    organizational construct that capitalizes on the inherent strengths of
    the Air Force's three components: the Active Duty, Air Force Reserve,
    and Air National Guard. In order to capitalize on these strengths, we
    based the FTF organizational construct on the successful associate
    model. Associate units are comprised of two or more components that are
    operationally integrated but whose chains of command remain separate.
        Toward this vision, new organizational constructs will integrate
    Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard personnel with their Active
    Duty counterparts in virtually every facet of Air Force operations.
        One of the key strengths of the Air Force Reserve and Air National
    Guard is higher personnel experience levels relative to Active Duty
    personnel. Increased integration will allow us to ``rebalance'' these
    experience levels, seasoning our Active Duty personnel through exposure
    to senior Reserve and Guard members. This also allows our Active Duty
    pilots to gain experience flying operational sorties while capitalizing
    on Reserve and Guard experience in an instructor capacity.
        In addition to enhancing our efforts on the battlefield, Air Force
    Reserve and Air National Guard members give us unsurpassed tools to
    conduct Homeland Defense missions. While still involved in
    expeditionary operations, FTF will increase the role of the Reserve and
    Guard in emerging stateside missions--a perfect fit for our Citizen
    Airmen. These changes will not only improve our operational
    effectiveness, but will reduce reliance on involuntary mobilization,
    providing more stability for Citizen Airmen and their civilian
    employers.
        The FTF, a modified force structure and new organizational
    construct, will give us the needed capabilities to meet future
    strategic challenges. Along with FTF, the Air Force has instituted
    initiatives in several key areas for the future.
    Science and Technology
        The Air Force is committed to providing the nation with the
    advanced air and space technologies required to protect our national
    security interests and ensure we remain on the cutting edge of system
    performance, flexibility, and affordability. Air Force Science and
    Technology (S&T) investments are focused on achieving the warfighting
    effects and capabilities required by the Air Force Concepts of
    Operations.
        By focusing on the technologies we believe we will need in the next
    10 to 25 years, we have made great strides in the information
    technology, battlefield air operations, space operations, directed
    energy, and sensors areas. We are pursuing key technologies, for
    example, sensors to identify concealed targets; automated information
    management systems essential to net-centric warfare; and
    countermeasures for Man-Portable Air Defense Systems.
        One example, under development, is an integrated Surface Moving
    Target Indicator (SMTI) network composed of manned and unmanned air and
    space assets that will enable the Combatant Commander to remotely find,
    fix, track, target, and engage moving targets. Lessons learned from
    Operations DESERT STORM, ENDURING FREEDOM, and IRAQI FREEDOM reflect
    the growing importance of SMTI. This proven capability shortens the
    kill chain by providing the warfighter the ability to ``put a cursor on
    the target.'' By linking future SMTI capability to find, fix, and track
    a moving target to the F/A-22 and F-35 capability to target and engage
    that same target, we achieve a transformational battlefield capability.
         Other technologies, such as laser communications to increase data
    transfer rates or advanced micro air vehicles to provide persistent
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, will increase future
    warfighting capabilities.
    Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
            Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
        Our goal is to achieve joint horizontal Command, Control,
    Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) integration and interoperability for the
    entire joint force. The vision is a seamless and ubiquitous network
    where space, air, and terrestrial assets have global machine-to-machine
    connectivity; where warfighters are armed with decision dominance,
    speed, and precision; and where weapon systems and platforms are
    ``network-enabled.''
    The Airborne Network for ConstellationNet
        The Air Force provides transportation layer components of the
    overall Department of Defense Global Information Grid under an effort
    we call ConstellationNet. The ConstellationNet is the information
    transport network (space, air, and ground) that allows a free flow of
    information rapidly accessible and presented to warfighters at the
    right time and right place to create the Combatant Commander's desired
    effects. The key to achieving information superiority is developing a
    robust space and air network that provides connectivity to network
    enabled platforms, fused intelligence, and real-time command and
    control. We are building the architecture and infrastructure that
    connects these platforms, creating a network in the sky.
        The space and air network will leverage evolving technologies and
    bring about the network-centric operations capabilities of Internet
    Protocol-based networks to overcome the current challenge of making the
    information exchange between platforms completely interoperable without
    degrading performance. These new technology standards and protocols
    will be incorporated through programs like the Joint Tactical Radio
    System, the Transformational Communications Satellite System, and the
    Global Information Grid-Bandwidth Expansion.
                The Ground Network for ConstellationNet
        The Combat Information Transport System (CITS) provides the Air
    Force ground segment of the ConstellationNet. CITS is structured into
    three components. The first is the communications transport component,
    which delivers high-speed and high-capacity network backbone capability
    for the distribution of voice, video, data, sensor, and multimedia
    information inside the base campus, as well as the gateway off the base
    to the Defense Information Systems Network and Global Information Grid
    Bandwidth Expansion locations. The second component is Net Battle
    Management. This component provides the capability to Air Force Network
    Operations and Security Centers (NOSCs) to centrally command and
    control the Air Force ConstellationNet across space, air, and ground
    information transport domains. To command and control the network, the
    NOSCs must have the ability to control the flow, routing, and traffic
    priorities of information based on mission requirements. Additionally,
    they must have the ability to grant and deny access to the network
    based on mission need and threat to the Global Information Grid. This
    leads to the third component of CITS, Net Defense. The Net Defense
    component integrates and fields information assurance capabilities
    across the ground component, to prevent unauthorized access to
    ConstellationNet.
        The Air Force envisions machine-to-machine communication between
    platforms, manned and unmanned, on the ground, in the air, and in
    space. To command and control these interactions, the Air Force has
    initiated an effort called Warfighting Headquarters.
    Warfighting Headquarters
        We are transforming our command and control structure by
    establishing new Warfighting Headquarters (WFHQ), positioned globally,
    and replacing our old Cold War structures to provide the Joint Force
    Commander with the most effective means to command and control air and
    space forces in support of National Security objectives. This new
    standing command structure consists of the Commander of Air Force
    Forces (COMAFFOR), the COMAFFOR's personal and special staffs, and the
    Air Force Forces functional staff. These forces will be organized and
    resourced to plan and deliver air and space power in support of U.S.
    and Unified Combatant Commander (UCC) strategies at a core capability
    level on a daily basis, further easing the transition from peacetime to
    wartime operations. The WFHQs are also structured to assume
    responsibilities immediately as the Combined or Joint Force Air
    Component Commander, and with the appropriate augmentation from the
    UCC, could assume the role as a Joint Task Force headquarters. The
    Warfighting Headquarters will also leverage the increased capabilities
    developed through Joint Warfighting Space.
    Joint Warfighting Space
        The Air Force is intensifying its focus on operationally responsive
    space--the ability to rapidly employ responsive spacelift vehicles and
    satellites and deliver space-based capabilities whenever and wherever
    needed. The first step in achieving a global Operationally Responsive
    Space capability is the Joint Warfighting Space (JWS) concept. JWS will
    provide dedicated, responsive space capabilities and effects to the
    Joint Force Commander in support of national security objectives. The
    concept seeks immediate and near-term initial operating capabilities to
    meet pressing Joint Force Commander needs, and a Full Operational
    Capability beyond 2010. Additionally, the Air Force envisions that JWS
    system capabilities will evolve as technology advances and the needs of
    the theater commander change.
        In the near-term, JWS will exploit existing off-the-shelf
    technologies from each Service. It will enhance and incorporate space
    capabilities in joint training and exercises, increase space
    integration in the AEF, and allow the Joint Force Commander to take
    advantage of the many synergies provided by multi-service space
    professionals. Lessons learned from JWS in exercises and crisis
    employment will initiate changes to space doctrine and help the Air
    Force, fellow Services, and joint community develop innovative space-
    derived effects.
        As technologies mature, JWS will bring the Joint Force Commander
    enhanced, dedicated capabilities that eliminate gaps in present-day
    space operations. The long-term plan envisions a fully capable
    expeditionary force, ready and responsive to theater warfighters' needs
    at the operational and tactical levels of war.
        When fully operational, the JWS capability will deliver responsive
    near space (i.e., the area above the earth from 65,000 to 325,000 feet
    altitude) and on-orbit capabilities to directly support the Joint Force
    Commander. If required, JWS squadrons could deploy from stateside to
    operate near space assets or integrate JWS capabilities into theater
    operations.
    Improving Close Air Support and Battlefield Airmen
        To increase its rapid strike capabilities in the close battlefield,
    the Air Force is examining new ways to improve upon its joint close air
    support (JCAS) mission, as well as implementing a way to better train
    personnel for the employment of air and space power.
        By combining the payload, long-loiter, and high-altitude capacity
    of bombers with precision munitions, improved command and control, and
    precise targeting, we have expanded our ability to conduct CAS.
    Performing CAS at high altitude with great precision and persistence is
    a major advancement in joint operations with land forces. Using laser
    and Global Positioning System-guided bombs such as the Joint Direct
    Attack Munition (JDAM), and with direct communications with a ground
    controller, a variety of aircraft are able to drop large numbers of
    JDAMs very close to friendly troops, destroying the enemy with massive,
    yet tailored, firepower. This capability provides day/night and all-
    weather support to ground forces.
        Today, primarily fighter and bomber aircraft, like the A-10, B-52,
    and F-16, conduct CAS. As these aircraft begin to reach the end of
    their service lives, F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) and
    F-35B Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variants will become
    the Air Force's workhorses for CAS and other missions.
        The F-35B STOVL variant offers a capability to operate with
    advancing U.S. Army, Marine, and Special Operations forces in a non-
    linear, dynamic battlefield. In addition, the F-35B will have
    commonality and interoperability with F-35s operated by other Services
    and Allies, facilitating Joint and Coalition operations.
        Additionally, Tactical Air Control Party Modernization Program
    improvements are transforming close air support control from reliance
    on voice communications during day/good weather conditions to digital/
    video and night/all-weather capability. The Remote Operations Video
    Enhanced Receiver kit provides real-time video from remotely piloted
    aircraft and other video transmitters. It includes computers, software,
    and data link operations, and can transmit targeting information as
    well as formatted and free-hand messages. Laser range-finders and laser
    designators provide the ability to take full advantage of precision and
    near-precision munitions. Quickly and accurately identifying and
    relaying target information not only makes our forces safer by allowing
    engagement of enemy forces in minimum time, but also reduces the risk
    of engaging the wrong target.
    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 the desired effects rapidly and/or persistently on any target
    set in any environment anywhere at anytime. The Air Force is
    responsible for conducting long-range strike missions as part of the
    Global Strike Concept of Operations. Our forces must be responsive to
    multiple Combatant Commanders simultaneously and 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 combine speed and
    stealth with payload to strike hardened, deeply buried, or mobile
    targets, deep in enemy territory, in adverse weather, with survivable
    persistence in the battlespace.
    Special Operations Forces
        We are emphasizing the unique effect produced by the synergy of
    Special Operations Forces (SOF) and rapid strike, and evolving
    requirements for SOF in the Global War on Terrorism. As part of meeting
    these new mission sets, we will continue to work in an increasingly
    joint environment with our sister service SOF units, and in concert
    with U.S. Special Operations Command. Our SOF units will enhance Army
    operations concepts resulting in a wider dispersion of ground forces
    across the battlefield.
        New mobility platforms such as the CV-22 Osprey and the Advanced
    Air Force Special Operations Forces Mobility Platform will add a new
    dimension in the ability to conduct SOF operations. Additionally, the
    F/A-22 will be a key enabler of forward operational access for joint
    forces. The Raptor will use its stealth and supercruise capabilities to
    support SOF and other maneuver elements deep in enemy territory, in
    what would otherwise be denied airspace.
        Closely related is the need to rapidly recover and extract
    personnel. We have begun the Personnel Recovery Vehicle Program,
    seeking to achieve initial operational capability in fiscal 2013 and
    replace the aging HH-60 combat search and rescue aircraft.
        We will continue to leverage our highly trained, highly motivated
    SOF personnel and develop technologies to devise a smaller, harder-
    hitting, faster-reacting, highly survivable force that maximizes the
    element of strategic and tactical surprise to defeat America's current
    and potential adversaries.

                       SUMMARY--ON COURSE FOR THE FUTURE

        The Air Force of the future makes the whole team better. Built
    around the 2025 Force and its accompanying organizational construct,
    the Future Total Force, the Air Force will be a more capable, smaller
    force. As such, the future Air Force increases the capability and
    flexibility of the joint force--and, subsequently, increases options
    for the Secretary of Defense and the President. 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 or interagency operation, as well as the
    enabling capabilities to improve joint warfighting capabilities on the
    ground, on or under the sea, and in the air and space. 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 the United States' long-held command of
    the global commons--air, sea, space, and cyberspace. The Air Force
    intends to extend its current air and space power advantage. As part of
    the joint force, the Air Force is positioned to leverage its persistent
    C\4\ISR, global mobility, and rapid strike to help win the GWOT,
    strengthen joint warfighting capabilities, and transform the joint
    force--while minimizing risk.
        To accomplish this requires focused investment in our people,
    science, and technology, and recapitalization of our aging aircraft and
    weapon systems.
        As threats change and America's interests evolve, we will continue
    to adapt 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 Jumper.
        General Jumper. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Members, it's
    a pleasure to share this table this morning with Mr. Dominguez,
    and I want to second my support for the priorities that Mr.
    Dominguez has laid out this morning. My comments this morning
    will be very brief.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Today, we have 28,000 airmen deployed, working the issues
    that confront us around the world. Six thousand of those are
    from the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve; and
    2,000 of that 6,000 are volunteers. We are making our
    recruiting goals in almost every category, and our retention
    goals, also, in almost every category. And we enjoy great
    support from our Air National Guard and our Air Force Reserve
    of the missions of the United States Air Force.

                               FLYING OPERATIONS

        We're flying about 150 sorties a day over Iraq, and about
    75 sorties a day over Afghanistan every day. These missions
    include close-air support and surveillance missions. We have
    Predator--multiple Predator orbits up, doing surveillance for
    the forces on the ground; a very significant airlift effort,
    both the strategic airlift that comes across the oceans to
    resupply our forces and the tactical airlift that flies within
    the theater every day. A significant tanker effort, that is
    required to keep the airplanes from all of the services in the
    fight, takes place every day and goes largely unsung as our
    mobility force participates in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the
    midst of all of this, we responded to the tsunami with more
    than 18 million pounds of relief supplies that were delivered
    in the tsunami effort in and around Indonesia to relieve the
    beleaguered people there. Overall, over 300,000 sorties this
    past year in our efforts around the world.

                         RECAPITALIZING FORCE STRUCTURE

        I share Mr. Dominguez's grave concern, and put the highest
    priority on recapitalizing our force. As an example, our tanker
    force and our--portions of our C-130 fleet are over 40 years
    old, and we are already seeing about 2,000 of the 6,000
    airplanes in the United States Air Force are under some sort of
    a flight restriction, mainly due to aging considerations. We
    need to put emphasis on this. And, again, I share Mr.
    Dominguez's priority to put emphasis on recapitalizing our
    fleet.

                        VISITING AIRMEN AROUND THE WORLD

        And, finally, Mr. Chairman, you know the great people that
    are out there. And let me just tell you how important it is
    when you and members of this subcommittee, which you have all
    done, travel over to the area of responsibility (AOR) to visit
    our people. Believe me, they notice, and they--and I hear about
    it--and they appreciate that visible sign of support, when you
    all come and see them in action. It lets them know that the
    people back home do, indeed, support them. So I thank you for
    all your personal efforts to go make yourself visible to the
    forces that are, indeed, engaged around the world.
        I look forward to your questions, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir. And thank you both for
    your brief statement.
        I'm going to yield to Senator Inouye. We have a vote that's
    going to start at 10 o'clock, and then we have to go join the
    House for a joint session, starting at about 10:25, so this
    hearing will end about 10 minutes after 10.
        I yield to you, my friend and co-chairman.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a prepared statement. I ask that it be made part of
    the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our representatives
    from the Air Force. General Jumper, Secretary Dominguez we
    thank you for being here today.
        As the President's request was being formulated this
    winter, word of many changes started to crop up in the press,
    such as terminating the C-130, and canceling the F-22.
        As we review the actual budget we see that many of these
    issues are really recommendations that would occur in future
    budgets.
        For example, this budget includes funding to purchase the
    F-22, and while it does not include funding for Air Force C-
    130's, it does fund the Marine Corps C-130 tanker.
        Nonetheless, the decisions to truncate plans for the F-22
    and C-130 are controversial matters that we will need to
    understand. We would expect that today's hearing would provide
    a forum to address these issues.
        Mr. Secretary, the Air Force is to be commended for its
    support of Operation Noble Eagle here at home, and Operations
    Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom overseas.
        We know that the Air Force has provided great support for
    our ground forces in theater, using your tremendous airlift,
    reconnaissance, and fighter aircraft.
        In addition, what many people may be surprised to learn is
    that there are approximately 2,600 airmen and women in Iraq in
    direct support of the Army and marines serving as truck
    drivers, security guards and combat engineers.
        Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, in our hearings with the
    Army, Navy and marines I have expressed my concern about
    recruiting and retention. The other services are experiencing
    difficulties recruiting or retaining personnel. At this moment,
    the Air Force has the opposite problem, you have more military
    personnel than you can afford. So, I hope you will address this
    matter today to explain how the Air Force can be exceeding its
    personnel goals while the other services are having shortfalls.
        Gentlemen, we sincerely appreciate all that you and the men
    and women in your service 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 Inouye. I want to point out that most Americans
    don't realize that you have about 2,600 men and women in Iraq,
    airmen and airwomen, driving trucks, doing combat engineer
    work, traffic, the jobs that other people do, like the Army or
    the Marines. And I want to commend you for pitching in to help
    the other services.
        Second, As you know, General, at this time, all services,
    with the exception of one, are having problems on recruiting
    and retention. You have a problem of your own. You've got too
    many of them.
        General Jumper. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. We'd like to get some explanation on how
    you're able to achieve all of that. Naturally, as I've pointed
    out in the past, I'm concerned about the plans you have for C-
    130s and the F/A-22s. These are--matters, I believe, which are
    not only of concern for Hawaii and Alaska, but for the whole
    Nation, and, for that matter, for the security of this globe.
        So I thank you very much for the service that all of you
    have rendered in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
    and Noble Eagle. Great job, sir.
        General Jumper. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that
    very much.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know time is
    short. I just want to welcome General Jumper and Secretary
    Dominguez to the subcommittee. I felt fortunate that I've spent
    a great deal of time with both of them. I think I even made
    their staff nervous because of the amount of time it took in my
    office with them yesterday. I spent the time because of the
    great respect I have for General Jumper's leadership. And, Mr.
    Secretary, I'm glad you're here. I've known General Jumper for
    some time, and I greatly admire him and his leadership team. I
    know they face some significant shortfalls--$3 billion in
    operations and maintenance, almost $750 million in personnel
    costs. I know we've always tried to work together in a
    bipartisan way to help them on these budgets, Mr. Chairman, and
    I pledge to work with you and Senator Inouye on that. But I
    just wanted to compliment them. If we don't have time for
    questions, I'll submit it for the record.
        General Jumper. Thank you, sir.

                   MILITARY PERSONNEL END STRENGTH MANAGEMENT

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. You both have
    mentioned the fact that you're, sort of, utilizing attrition to
    meet your top line, as far as personnel is concerned. Tell us
    about that. You expect to go down to October--is that what you
    said, Mr. Secretary?--and then start recruiting? Our figures
    show that you're pretty much above your end-strength level
    authorized right now.
        Mr. Dominguez. Senator, we're--right now, at the end of
    March, we're about 3,000 airmen over our authorized end
    strength. That's the place we're supposed to be September 30.
    So we are in very comfortable territory. It's within the
    margin, now, of the wiggle room authorized by the Congress,
    plus or minus 3 percent of our end strength.
        We've been working the problem pretty aggressively for a
    couple of years. Of course, the biggest gains were the ones
    that we resisted having to make, and that's taking a very steep
    nosedive in our recruiting in fiscal year 2005, which we have,
    but we are recruiting. We are recruiting to our most critical
    shortfall skills. And we figured we could do that with a 1-year
    holiday. But we need, in fiscal year 2006, to return back to a
    normal recruiting year about 30,000 active component airmen,
    and that is the plan.
        Now, in addition to dealing with accessions to get to our
    end strength, we've been doing some pretty aggressive things to
    try and entice people to leave us when they're in overage
    skills. We've implemented career job reservation, where, if
    you're in an overage skill, you have to retrain into a shortage
    skill when you re-enlist. So these are all difficult kinds of
    things. We didn't like doing them, but we were obligated to do
    so.
        I want to highlight, one thing that we are trying to do is
    that we've worked in close partnership with the Army. Anyone in
    the Air Force who wants to move into the Army and continue
    their service there, we have a program called ``Blue to Green''
    to help facilitate that movement.

                                   RECRUITING

        General Jumper. We essentially cut our recruiting in half
    for this fiscal year, sir. And, essentially, from October to
    February, we essentially shut down recruiting. We picked it up
    again in February and are trying to work our way back into
    normal recruiting. But that's the step, the major step, we took
    to meet our end strength problem.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Let me state, for the members here, we have 20 minutes left
    of this hearing. The vote will start at 10 o'clock. Let me
    yield each of you 5 minutes, and then we'll see what happens
    with the last 5 minutes, whether someone else comes in.
        Senator Inouye is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary and General, I'd just like to
    make a note and reflect upon history. When the B-2 was planned,
    we had planned for, I believe, 132. And, at that time, I
    believe the B-2 was going to cost us about $350 million per
    aircraft. In order to cut costs, so they were told, we cut it
    down to 21, and each B-2 cost around $2 billion. I see
    something like that happening to the F/A-22. Would something
    like that happen again, sir?
        General Jumper. Go ahead.

                              AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION

        Mr. Dominguez. Senator, we may be poised on that, and
    that's certainly part of the discussion that we're going to
    have with Secretary Rumsfeld and his team through the summer in
    the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). But, largely, the up-
    front investment costs of building that airplane are sunk. If
    you--to buy the airplanes that were taken out of the budget in
    this latest round--costs about $10 billion for 100 airplanes.
    That's about $100 million a copy for the product. And legacy
    airplanes, the F-15E, if you were going to buy another one of
    those today, you'd be in the $90 to $100 million range, as
    well. So the sunk-cost argument is something we have to be
    really careful to explain.

                           QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

        General Jumper. We've got to make sure, sir, that, as we go
    into the Quadrennial Defense Review--I don't think that there's
    an argument about the capability of the airplane; it's going to
    be an argument--not an argument--it's going to be a discussion
    about the numbers of airplanes. And that's a relevant
    discussion. And the Secretary of Defense said we would have
    that discussion. And, hopefully, we'll be able to amortize all
    this investment we've had over the correct number of airplanes
    when we finish the Quadrennial Defense Review.
        Senator Inouye. I wish you the best, sir.
        General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. We'll do whatever we can.
        The other matter that concerns me is the C-130J termination
    plans. I've been told that it may cost an extra billion
    dollars. Is there any truth to that?

                                 C-130J PROGRAM

        Mr. Dominguez. Sir, what is accurate today is that the
    costs estimated for termination of the C-130J multiyear that
    are in the President's budget were underestimated. We know
    that, absolutely. The Secretary of Defense has acknowledged
    that. And his Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation is,
    right now, re-looking at that, trying to get a handle on what--
    the more accurate figure of the costs of terminating the
    multiyear. The Secretary has committed to providing that
    information to the Congress, if not by the end of this month,
    certainly in the early part of May, before you're deep into
    your markup of the 2006 budget.
        General Jumper. And we also think, Senator, that, as the
    mobility requirements study is completed by the end of this
    month, that the mobility capabilities study will help inform
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Secretary
    of Defense on the proper steps to take for the C-130J multiyear
    contract.
        Senator Inouye. And I think the study will show that the C-
    130J is needed. Am I correct?
        General Jumper. Sir, I haven't seen the study, but if I
    look at the world out there that we live in today, certainly
    there's great demand for the C-130. And, as you well know, the
    C-130s in the Air Force that we have today, many of them are
    facing groundings because of wing cracks. So that requirement,
    I see--personally, as I see it, is growing.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                      FUTURE AIRSPACE AND TRAINING RANGES

        General, I want to talk a little bit about airspace for the
    future. It's my understanding the Air Combat Command has 10
    training ranges across the United States. These ranges support
    different types of aircraft and targets, and allow for live-
    ordnance delivery. These ranges and the airspace are critical,
    as I understand it, to the training of our Nation's premier
    aircraft. I believe it's less likely that new sources of
    airspace will be available for the Department of Defense in the
    future. In addition, recapitalizing tactical air assets with
    the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and with the F-22 will place
    greater demands on the need, as I understand it, for quality
    ranges. Is that correct?
        General Jumper. Sir, that's absolutely correct.
        Senator Domenici. Do you share my view that airspace for
    the Air Force will be at a premium in the future?
        General Jumper. I do, indeed, sir.
        Senator Domenici. All right. Why is it important that the
    Air Force of the future control large training ranges and the
    associated airspace?
        General Jumper. Well, sir, the very speed of the airplanes
    and the standoff distances of our weapons dictate ever-
    increasing demands for airspace in an environment where that
    airspace is decreasing. So, if you take, for instance, an F/A-
    22 that can supercruise at 1.5 Mach, or a small-diameter bomb
    that, when released, can glide out 65 miles to its target,
    those parameters are much different than anything we've seen
    with legacy airplanes in the past.
        Senator Domenici. And we hear a lot about training without
    having to do actual missions and actual in-the-field training,
    but do you believe that live, realistic training aircraft, like
    the JSF, will be critical to the combat success of those kind
    of airplanes?
        General Jumper. We'll never be able to substitute for all
    of live training. There's no doubt about it. Certainly,
    distributed mission training and distributed mission operations
    will allow us to have our aircrews train with certain types of
    platforms that are hard to get into the training environment,
    especially surveillance platforms. And we'll do that in a
    distributed way.
        There will be some training with next-generation munitions
    that we'll do in a simulator environment. But, in the end, you
    can never substitute--and, as a matter of fact, the great
    leverage that our airmen have is training, and the great
    leverage that we have over other air forces in the world is our
    ability to go out and do this live training, as you described.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I would assume, with all that, that
    it will be difficult to go out and obtain new facilities, new
    airspace, new ranges to do this. Is that correct, General?
        General Jumper. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I look out in the West, and I don't see
    where you'll get them.
        General Jumper. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Is that a----
        General Jumper. It's going to be----
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Fair statement?
        General Jumper [continuing]. It's going to be very
    difficult to get more than we have, yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And will not the JSF, which is a higher-
    performance aircraft as compared with the F-16--will it not
    need supersonic ranges for it--to complete its overland
    training?
        General Jumper. Sir, to a lesser extent than the F/A-22,
    but, yes, similar to the F-16. But, still, that makes that
    supersonic airspace very precious.
        Senator Domenici. And why is it important that they be able
    to train at supersonic?
        General Jumper. Well, sir, you can't--in the modern
    airplane, quite frankly, and you're in the middle of a fight,
    you don't know when you've gone supersonic. So, if you're
    having to pay attention to your airspeed indicator all the time
    to make sure that you don't create that sonic boom and disturb
    the people on the ground, whose support we need, then you're
    paying attention to artificialities that you don't want to be--
    have in your habit patterns.
        Senator Domenici. So the same thing would be true as you
    train.
        General Jumper. Precisely, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                          COMMUNITY BASING INITIATIVE

        General Jumper, we discussed this somewhat yesterday, but
    the Air Force has currently launched an important community
    basing initiative with the 158th Fighter Wing in the National
    Guard. I'm well aware of it, because the 158th is in my home
    State of Vermont. You're going to station active duty personnel
    at Guard bases to work alongside their counterparts. I think
    it's an excellent idea. It's going to allow the regular Air
    Force to draw on the Guard's knowledge and expertise, and vice
    versa. The F-16 pilots that are maintained at the Vermont Guard
    have an incredible amount of experience. They are, of course,
    the ones who flew cover over New York City after 9/11 around
    the clock for some considerable period of time.
        My understanding is that 12 Air Force personnel will be
    coming to Vermont. We could accommodate an active duty
    associate unit of at least 200 pilots and maintenance
    personnel. I know a lot of other Guard units, very good Guard
    units around--across the country could do that. Where do you
    see this going? I know this is something you're looking at not
    just for today, but where we are 3 years and 5 years down the
    road. Where do you see it going?
        General Jumper. Sir, Mr. Dominguez has been in the
    personnel business in our Air Force before he became the Acting
    Secretary, and he and the rest of us have been very involved in
    making sure that the Air National Guard participates in the
    missions that are in demand of our Air Force, as the active
    duty also transforms itself--so, missions such as, not only the
    flying mission, but space, information warfare, unmanned air
    vehicles, et cetera. We want the Air National Guard and the Air
    Force Reserve to participate in all of those.
        We also want to make sure that, wherever we can, we have
    the active and the Air National Guard working together. And
    this is the case in the community basing idea, which we are
    looking very much forward to testing, beginning this summer
    when all of our people arrive.
        I've told you that the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air
    Force has been up to visit that unit, and his report was
    absolutely outstanding. I have every confidence that this
    experiment will be a success, and we'll look for other similar
    opportunities to either grow this capability or put it
    elsewhere. And I have a feeling that this model will be in
    demand in several other places. So, it's a very good model,
    sir.

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Senator Leahy. I have sort of a corollary question. I see,
    in the Air Force's future total force, a disproportionate
    number of tactical airplanes in the Guard being retired. And
    I'm just wondering if we're, on the one hand, working with the
    Guard, but, on the other hand, cutting back their ability to
    carry out this integral part. And I'm not just singling out the
    Air Force; I think everybody throughout the military command
    are going to hear this question, whether it's the Army or the
    Navy or whatever, because of the huge contribution the Guard's
    been making in the last 3 years in all these branches.
        General Jumper. Sir, our full intention is to bring the
    Guard along with us. And, as you know, we have an associate
    Guard relationship at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, which
    will be the first F/A-22 unit with the Air National Guard unit
    in Richmond, Virginia. So, our intention is to, as I said
    before, bring the Air National Guard into the main mission
    stream, continue them into the main mission stream, as they
    have been.
        In the plans that we have, there is absolutely no intention
    to bring down the end strength of the Air National Guard. So,
    if there are cuts in personnel, those cuts will come out of the
    active duty force.
        With regard to the aircraft, we are simply trying to align
    the hardware in the Air Force where the demands for the
    missions exist. And we are doing that in full collaboration
    with the National Guard. We have National Guard members on the
    team that are working these issues. They are in the Pentagon
    with us every single day working these issues.
        So, I think it's with full visibility, sir, that we're
    trying to do the right thing as our missions transform in the
    Air Force.
        Senator Leahy. Well, General, if you, and, Mr. Secretary,
    if you, as this goes on, can you periodically give briefings to
    my staff. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Dorgan is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary and General, thank you very
    much.
        General, I understand this may well be the last time you
    will appear before the Appropriations Committee as Chief.
        General Jumper. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. And let me just tell you that, from my
    standpoint, I think you've done an outstanding job. I've
    appreciate working with you. I think you've always been
    straight with this subcommittee, and we appreciate your
    service.
        General Jumper. That's very kind, sir, thank you.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask you about Base Realignment and
    Closure (BRAC), base closing. What kind of excess capacity have
    you indicated to the Secretary of Defense exists in the Air
    Force? How much, and what kind of excess capacity?
        General Jumper. Sir, what we did in the BRAC process was
    lay out our military requirements. And in the military
    requirements that have to do with range space and the necessity
    to distribute ourselves properly around the United States to be
    postured for various contingencies, either homeland
    contingencies or deployment contingencies, we've laid out those
    requirements, which then go into an analytical process.
        So, sir, we, quite frankly, have not taken this as a base-
    by-base issue. It's an overall requirements issue. And to keep
    this process completely clean, I have absolutely stayed away
    from any consideration of base-by-base matters.
        Senator Dorgan. General, I understand that. That wasn't
    what----
        General Jumper. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. I was trying to get at. My
    question was, there have been--all of us, on this subcommittee,
    I think, have read assessments that there's 20 percent excess
    capacity here or there, or 15 percent or 25 percent, it's in
    this area or that area. And that's the set of information that
    gave rise to a BRAC.
        General Jumper. Right.
        Senator Dorgan. So I assume, coming from each of the
    services, and all of the services, the notion of how much
    excess capacity they had was a stimulant for the Department of
    Defense (DOD) requesting a BRAC round. And I guess, I'm trying
    to evaluate, not with respect to individual bases----
        General Jumper. Right.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Or major installations----
        General Jumper. Right.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. What kind of excess capacity
    do you think, or did you recommend, exist at this point?
        General Jumper. We weren't asked the question exactly that
    way, but if I give you my estimate, it was about 20 percent.
    Now, that's just for the Air Force. As this goes into
    consideration, joint usage comes into the equation, too. So
    that 20 percent may become less as joint utilization options
    also are considered.
        Senator Dorgan. Are there categories in which that 20
    percent exists relative to other categories, such as, in some
    areas they talk about training, and other areas as having
    substantial--or depots having excess capacity?
        General Jumper. Um----
        Senator Dorgan. Do you recall----
        General Jumper [continuing]. Sir, I don't want to try--I
    don't want to be overly specific here, because I'm not exactly
    sure. It's not just training; it would be training and
    education, for instance.
        Senator Dorgan. Right.
        General Jumper. So the categories are parsed out, the way I
    understand it, and I don't want to sit here and quote what the
    categories are, because I'm not sure I'd get it right. But, if
    you don't mind, I'd take that for the record, if that's okay
    with you----
        Senator Dorgan. That's fine.
        General Jumper [continuing]. And get that to you.
        [The information follows:]

                        BRAC Excess Capacity Categories

        The Air Force analyzed infrastructure capacity in terms of
    installation categories, more specifically a set of
    installations identified as ``major installations.'' A
    parametric analytical technique was used which provided a rough
    measure of excess capacity. The results of this methodology
    provide a credible assessment of aggregate excess capacity.
        The Air Force identified nine categories of supporting
    infrastructure needed to support its current and future force
    structure. The categories and aggregate excess capacity numbers
    are broken down as follows: Administrative: 31 percent; Air
    Force Reserve: 36 percent; Air National Guard: 34 percent;
    Depots: None; Education and Training: 45 percent (classroom
    space), 12 percent (ramp & supporting facilities); Missiles &
    Large Aircraft: 27 percent; Small Aircraft: 16 percent; Space
    Operations: 35 percent; and Labs Test Centers etc.: 18 percent.
        This and a more detailed description may be found in the
    Report to Congress on Base Realignment and Closure 2005, dated
    March 22, 2004.

        Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might, the answers to those
    questions are in the analysis that General Jumper described and
    these are rough-order-of-magnitude estimates, but the details
    are being worked now.
        Senator Dorgan. Right.
        Mr. Dominguez. And so, the answers are still forthcoming,
    sir.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, there will be no small amount of
    interest in all of these issues, in virtually every office here
    on Capitol Hill.

                               AGING TANKER FLEET

        Let me ask about tankers. In recent years, General, you
    have come to us to talk about the aging tanker fleet and the
    urgency with which that we deal with that. As you know, we've
    proceeded with the 767 issue. That's gotten snarled in a number
    of different ways. And so, the question is, Does the urgency
    still exist? If so, where do you think we are? And I don't
    see--at this point, we don't have, I think, a mechanism
    underway to try to find a way around this. So give us your
    assessment of the tanker-fleet situation.
        General Jumper. Sir, I think that we are--we'll await the
    outcome of the analysis of alternatives, which is formally
    being done now, and expect to see the results of that in the
    summertime. As soon as that analysis of alternatives is
    complete, then we'll have a path ahead to start a formal
    acquisition program. The urgency of recapitalizing the tanker
    fleet, I think, grows every day, and my concern is if I lose
    sleep over one thing at night, it's about the aging aircraft
    problem and the corrosion problems we have, and it's especially
    in our tanker fleet. So, I think that we will step out with all
    urgency, once we see the analysis of alternatives, to get a
    formal program underway, with all the provisions of the
    acquisition process that have been a concern with the formal
    proposal.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude by
    saying, I think of significant interest to all of us, as well,
    is the issue of the Air Guard and the----
        General Jumper. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. F-16s and all the related
    issues of the Air Guard.
        General Jumper. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. And I want you, always, when you go to bed,
    to remember the Happy Hooligans, who have--as you know, have
    won the William Tell Trophy more than once and are, I think,
    the best fighter pilots in the Air Force.
        General Jumper. They're hard to forget, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, again, General, you've done a first-
    rate job, and thank you very much for being here.
        General Jumper. Very kind.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you all for your brevity.

                                 F/A-22 PROGRAM

        On the F/A-22, it's got a similar problem now, as I see it.
    Am I wrong? We have a proposed reduction in procurement of the
    F/A-22, and that's going to have some change in terms of future
    investment and cost. What is the future operational impact of
    this request to reduce the investment in the F/A-22 this year?
        General Jumper. Sir, I think that if the number is, indeed,
    reduced, as the proposal exists today, then we will be
    returning with a request for something to fill in for those
    capabilities.
        Our proposal right now, if we lay out the Air Force
    requirement, I would ask for about 380 F/A-22s that would
    replace between 800 and 900 legacy airplanes. If we can't get
    to that number, or if the number is significantly less than
    that, then we'll have to come back and ask to fill in some of
    those blanks with legacy airplanes. And, as I pointed out
    earlier, I think those legacy airplanes will cost just about as
    much as an F/A-22.
        Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might, that exact question is
    a thing that we'll be wrestling with through this summer in the
    Quadrennial Defense Review, because they're going to be looking
    at the air dominance problem and what's the best way to get to
    air dominance and sustain it.
        Senator Stevens. Well, that suggestion--really a request--
    to reduce the investment that is in this budget is not being
    too well received on Capitol Hill--what worries me is that
    we're going to be faced with a demand to maintain the previous
    level of procurement of F/A-22 and there have to be adjustments
    elsewhere in the budget. Have you looked at that, the two of
    you? Where if we have a vote that requires us to increase the
    rate of procurement of the F/A-22 in 2006, what's that going to
    do to the balance of the budget?
        Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't believe----
        Senator Stevens. It's 2008, she tells me. It's----
        Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. 2008.
        Mr. Dominguez. This is not a problem for the Congress in
    the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. It is something we will
    wrestle with--the program was terminated by Program Budget
    Decision 753 in 2008, so this is a problem we must wrestle with
    this summer, and we'll be communicating with you shortly after
    that, sir.
        Senator Stevens. These suggestions we're having--we're
    receiving from other members to try to eliminate that impact in
    2008, do you think that's premature?
        Mr. Dominguez. I don't--I'm not aware of any decision
    you're being asked to make this year, in this President's
    budget, that will prejudice the issue, one way or the other.
        General Jumper. And I think, Senator, considering this in
    the Quadrennial Defense Review, as the Secretary of Defense has
    promised, is the correct thing to do, and I think we'll be able
    to answer these questions in plenty of time to affect a
    decision that now doesn't impact us until 2008.
        Senator Stevens. When's that due, General?
        General Jumper. Well, it's due--the whole thing is due out
    next February, but I think the major part of the work that's
    going to go into the Quadrennial Defense Review is going to be
    done this summer, and results will be forthcoming from that
    this summer.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, we have 9 minutes left on
    that vote, I'm told.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
    recognition.
        I wanted to just congratulate General Jumper and the
    leadership of the Air Force on the fine job they're doing in
    helping us protect the security of our country. You have a lot
    of competing interests and demands for equipment, materiels,
    funding, generally. It's a tough year to make choices and to
    try to assign priorities. But I look forward to working with
    them and with you and Senator Inouye in helping to support the
    effort to be sure we get it right and that we fund those
    activities that are important for our security needs.
        I just would put my statement in the record, with your
    permission. And, under the constraints we have for voting on
    the floor, thank you for recognizing me.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming these
    two distinguished leaders of the Department of the Air Force.
        I commend the outstanding efforts demonstrated each day by
    our airmen. The country has come to expect air dominance in all
    military conflicts, and our reliance on space assets is
    significant and steadily increasing. The total Air Force, the
    active duty, Guard, and Reserve, is playing a pivotal role in
    the Global War on Terror, and not just in operations in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. We also appreciate your homeland defense
    mission, which includes daily patrols over United States
    airspace.
        I thank you both for your leadership, and for the service
    of the women and men you represent. I look forward to your
    testimony.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    coming by.
        General Jumper, you reflect well upon the education
    received at the Anchorage High School.
        General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I want to tell you that your many friends
    wish you well----
        General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. As you go through this final
    year. And I, personally, look forward to being with you,
    General.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Secretary Dominguez, we're pleased to have you here with us
    for the first time.
        [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 L. Dominguez
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Question. Mr. Secretary, I am advised that as part of the
    Department of Defense's transformation of its military forces, the U.S.
    Air Force is developing an initiative known as ``Future Total Force
    (FTF),'' which focuses on accelerated reductions of legacy weapons
    systems and the procurement of newer weapons systems. Considering that
    many of the legacy weapons systems are found at Air National Guard and
    the Air Force Reserve units, would you please describe in detail the
    impact of ``Future Total Force'' on these entities?
        Answer. The traditional mix of Air National Guard, Air Force
    Reserve and Active component aircraft has served the nation well in the
    context of legacy platforms and traditional threats. However, as we
    move into the 21st century, the Air Force faces increasing
    modernization and recapitalization challenges, an adversary
    increasingly hard to define, and strained budget realities. While we
    possess weapon systems to meet today's challenges and are investing in
    cutting edge technology and highly capable, highly trained personnel,
    we must make transformational changes to maximize the capability these
    advances give us. One way we will do this is through the Future Total
    Force (FTF).
        The FTF concept will enable the Air Force to meet the challenge of
    ensuring a sustainable 20-year strategic vision. Through the use of
    innovative organizational constructs such as associate units, we seek
    to be better able to match the skills of our highly experienced Air
    Reserve Component (ARC) personnel with our fewer, but more capable,
    cutting edge weapon systems. This fundamentally changes an old paradigm
    of putting Guard and Reserve in ``hand-me down'' systems and instead
    puts them in front line systems with decades of relevancy. This new
    force structure focuses on programs, forces and technology, as well as
    new organizational concepts that strive to fundamentally improve the
    effectiveness of our Active Duty, Guard and Reserve personnel and
    systems. Ultimately, FTF is designed to provide the means for the Air
    Force to improve its overall combat capabilities and continue to be a
    primary enabler in joint operations.
        In addition, the FTF vision does not mean taking flying missions
    away from the Air National Guard without a viable, meaningful mission
    to replace it. In fact, FTF will guarantee that both the Air Force
    Reserve and Air National Guard are full partners as new weapons systems
    like the F/A-22 and Joint Strike Fighter come on line. In addition, our
    reserve components will be key players as we adopt emerging
    technologies to fight the fight of the future, allowing them to be
    involved in these exciting new missions, yet taking advantage of the
    ``reachback'' these missions provide, minimizing the need for
    disruptive mobilizations.
        Question. Under ``Future Total Force,'' what aircraft will be
    retired and under what timeframe?
        Answer. Future Total Force (FTF) is a fundamental element of Air
    Force transformation. Comprised of two major components, 2025 Force
    Structure and innovative organizational constructs, FTF will create
    efficiencies, retain valuable human capital, and above all, increase
    the combat capability across all Air Force components. Specifically,
    this effort will divest the oldest and least capable aircraft in our
    inventory, including the A-10, F-16, F-117, and older F-15 models. The
    drawdown of some of these aircraft begins in fiscal year 2007 and
    continues through 2025. A recapitalized force consisting of F/A-22s, F-
    35s, and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) will replace legacy
    fighters, whose average age today is more than 17 years.
        Question. What safeguards are in place to ensure that while the Air
    Force is reducing the current legacy aircraft inventory, it is not also
    undermining the country's ability to protect itself from multiple
    airborne threats?
        Answer. In order to face uncertain threats of the future, the Air
    Force must pursue aggressive divestiture of aging aircraft that are
    increasingly expensive to operate, deliver less capability and
    experience higher attrition rates. To determine the best course of
    action, the Air Force Studies and Analysis Agency (AFSAA) ran a variety
    of defense planning scenarios (with threats determined externally by
    the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, etc.)
    against 14 force structure models. AFSAA determined the optimal force
    structure, called the Future Total Force, requires retirement of aging
    aircraft, primarily older model F-16s, C-130s and KC-135s. From a
    business case perspective, the savings realized through this
    divestiture are critical if we are to move into high-tech emerging
    missions that will make the Air Force more relevant to the joint
    warfighter well into the 21st century.
        Because these emerging mission areas will provide an exponential
    increase in capability, we will need the additional manpower and
    capability resident in our Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve to
    get the most ``bang for our buck.'' Using innovative organizational
    constructs, members of the Active Duty, Guard and Reserve will work
    side-by-side at unprecedented levels to achieve the crew ratios these
    highly capable platforms demand.
        Homeland Defense is the most vital mission responsibility of the
    U.S. Air Force, and for that reason, the Air Force looked very closely
    at what capabilities are and will be required for that mission. Those
    capabilities requirements were identified and separated out of the mix
    so as not to be jeopardized throughout the FTF analysis process. In
    other words, at no time will the capabilities requirements necessary to
    provide homeland defense be vulnerable to divestments or reorganization
    efforts.
        It is important to point out that exempting the capabilities
    required for homeland defense does not necessarily isolate a particular
    unit or installation from divestments or reorganization efforts. There
    are many considerations that will help determine which units and
    installations will be selected for FTF implementation, but primary
    among these will be the impact on the Air Force's ability to provide
    homeland security.
        The FTF is a twenty-year plan. It will evolve over time and will in
    fact enhance the Air Force's ability to protect the homeland.
        Question. Does ``Future Total Force'' seek to reduce Air National
    Guard personnel authorization? Could the accelerated pace of retiring
    Air National Guard aircraft leave units and personnel without missions?
        Answer. The Future Total Force (FTF) Plan does not seek to reduce
    Air National Guard (ANG) personnel end strength. In order to face
    uncertain threats of the future, the Air Force must pursue aggressive
    divestiture of aging aircraft that are increasingly expensive to
    operate, deliver less capability and experience higher attrition rates.
    To determine the best course of action, the Air Force Studies and
    Analysis Agency (AFSAA) ran a variety of defense planning scenarios
    (with threats determined externally by the CIA, DIA, etc.) against 14
    force structure models. AFSAA determined the optimal force structure,
    called the Future Total Force, requires retirement of aging aircraft,
    primarily older model F-16s, C-130s and KC-135s. From a business case
    perspective, the savings realized through this divestiture are critical
    if we are to move into high-tech emerging missions that will make the
    Air Force more relevant to the joint warfighter well into the 21st
    century.
        Because these emerging mission areas will provide an exponential
    increase in capability, we will need the additional manpower and
    capability resident in our Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force
    Reserve to get the most ``bang for our buck.'' And, as I have stated,
    ANG end strength will remain constant. Using innovative organizational
    constructs, members of the Active Duty, Guard and Reserve will work
    side-by-side at unprecedented levels to achieve the crew ratios these
    highly capable platforms demand.
        There is a common misperception that because the predominant number
    of older model F-16s reside in Guard units that these units will be
    left without a mission until they receive new, emerging missions, or
    that they will lose their mission altogether. Nothing could be further
    from the truth. The Air Force needs the experience and capability that
    resides in the Guard and Reserve. Without it, we would be unable to
    meet the needs of the Nation. Members of the Guard and Reserve will be
    a part of all new weapons systems from their inception. In fact, we are
    in the process of standing up a new associate relationship between the
    Air National Guard and the Active Duty at Langley AFB, Virginia flying
    the F/A-22.
        Once basing decisions are made under Base Realignment And Closure
    (BRAC), we plan to implement force structure plans through a
    redistribution of airframes as well as the stand-up of new and exciting
    emerging missions. Air National Guard end strength will be preserved.
    An ANG unit may lose older model F-16s, but may get another weapon
    system, even a newer airframe of the same model. Please be assured that
    we will work with the National Guard Bureau to make any ANG unit
    transition, if deemed necessary, as smooth as possible.
        Question. Has the Air Force examined alternatives to modernizing
    some current systems in the event that funding and procurement of new
    weapons systems are delayed?
        Answer. Modernizing and extending the service life of our aging
    legacy fighter force will not replace the vital transformational
    capabilities of the F/A-22 and the F-35. Tactical aircraft force
    structure trades and capability mix considerations are currently being
    studied in the Department's ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review Joint
    Air Dominance Study Analysis. Results of this study will determine
    modernization needs of our legacy fighter fleet.
        Question. Has the ``Future Total Force'' initiative been presented
    to the Adjutants General so that the total impact on the Air National
    Guard (ANG) can be adequately assessed and reasonable alternatives can
    be developed that allow the Air Force to modernize while, at the same
    time, maintain an appropriate balance of Air National Guard assets so
    the Guard can continue to accomplish its air sovereignty mission?
        Answer. The Future Total Force (FTF) Plan has been communicated to
    The Adjutant Generals (TAGs) through a variety of venues and means.
    First, both the Secretary and the Vice Chief of Staff have spoken at
    TAG meetings. Second, the TAGs have two colonel-level representative's
    working in the Air Force FTF office, as well as a full-time
    representative from the Guard Bureau. The Air Force convened a General
    Officer Steering Committee to oversee FTF actions; there are three
    Adjutants General who sit on that Committee.
        The Air Force Directorate of Plans and Programs recently hosted a
    classified meeting with the TAGs to share the entire Force Structure
    Plan and to answer any questions the TAGs may have. Furthermore, the
    ANG's Future Total Force office is working in lock step with the HQ
    USAF FTF office, including attendance at Air Force/FTF staff meetings.
    The Air Force will continue to work with both the Air Force Reserve and
    the Air National Guard as we make decisions regarding the Air Force's
    future.
        Homeland defense, to include air sovereignty, is the most vital
    mission responsibility of the United States Air Force, and for that
    reason, the Air Force looked very closely at what capabilities are and
    will be required for that mission. Those capabilities requirements were
    identified and separated out of the mix so as not to be jeopardized
    throughout the FTF analysis process. In other words, at no time will
    the capabilities requirements necessary to provide homeland defense be
    vulnerable to divestments or reorganization efforts.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, in representing a state where the Army and
    Air National Guard Forces represent, by far, the most significant
    military presence, it is my very strong hope that transformation can be
    accomplished without undermining National Guard personnel and its
    assets. Please respond for the record what you will do to make sure
    that the Guard's interests are represented in this process.
        Answer. The Future Total Force (FTF) Plan has in fact been
    communicated to The Adjutant Generals (TAGs) through a variety of
    venues and means. First, both the Secretary and the Vice Chief of Staff
    have spoken at TAG meetings. Second, the TAGs have two colonel-level
    representative's working in the Air Force FTF office, as well as a
    full-time representative from the Guard Bureau. The Air Force convened
    a General Officer Steering Committee to oversee FTF actions; there are
    three Adjutants General who sit on that Committee.
        The Air Force Directorate of Plans and Programs recently hosted a
    classified meeting with the TAGs to share the entire force structure
    plan and to answer any questions the TAGs may have. Furthermore, the
    ANG's FTF office is working in lock step with the HQ USAF FTF office,
    including attendance at Air Force/FTF staff meetings. The Air Force
    will continue to work with both the Air Force Reserve and the Air
    National Guard as we make decisions regarding the Air Force's future.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to General John P. Jumper
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                              PERSONNEL STRUCTURE

        Question. As the Air Force continues to transform to meet the
    challenges of today and the future, what is your plan to shape and
    balance the personnel structure in the Air Force?
        Answer. The Air Force's ongoing Force Shaping program is still on
    track to ``right size'' the Active Duty end strength to the
    congressionally mandated level of 359,700 Airmen by the end of fiscal
    year 2005. We were able to successfully draw down approximately 22,000
    Airmen in excess skills predominantly by waiving service commitments,
    reducing accessions, and allowing transfers to the ``Total Force''
    (through PALACE CHASE) and to the Army (``Blue-to-Green'').
        As the Air Force returns to authorized end strength, we will
    continue ``right shaping'' efforts by providing relief to overstressed
    career fields through recruiting, retention, and retraining
    initiatives. We have focused fiscal year 2005 recruiting efforts
    towards the 58 most critical combat and combat support specialties.
    Additionally, where we are experiencing shortfalls, we have targeted
    our bonus programs in order to retain our Airmen. Finally, we have
    restarted our Career Job Reservation program and implemented a robust
    retraining program migrating excess Airmen to shortage career fields.
        However, as the Air Force corrects our active skill imbalances by
    realigning manpower and expanding training pipelines, the Total Force,
    to include our civilian workforce and the Air Reserve Component (ARC),
    will play a critical role in rebalancing the force for the future. We
    will continue initiatives that produce greater efficiencies through
    military-to-civilian conversions and competitive sourcing.
    Additionally, with the Guard and Reserve volunteers providing greater
    participation in our air expeditionary packages, we will take
    appropriate ``right shaping'' steps to ensure long-term health of both
    our Active Duty and ARC forces. As we move forward, we will constantly
    review our Active/ARC mix across all of our mission areas.

                               PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

        Question. Space is very important for our national security. We
    seem to be experiencing cost growth problems in some of our space
    programs. What steps is the Air Force taking to improve program
    management and to control costs of our important space programs?
        Answer. The Department has reorganized to vest many space
    responsibilities and authorities with one individual. We continue to
    refine the space acquisition decision-making process. One change is the
    creation of National Security Space (NSS) Acquisition Policy 03-01.
    Hallmarks of NSS 03-01 include: OSD-led independent cost estimates at
    each key decision point and build approval, increased attention on
    technology maturation, requirements documentation advanced earlier in
    the program cycle, acquisition phases aligned with key design reviews,
    and an emphasis on management reserve as key to acquisition success.
        We find ourselves trying to manage programs in the non-recurring
    research and development field where the government program manager has
    inadequate reserve to apply to problems as they occur. As a result,
    problems that occur in the development phase of some of our very
    complex satellite systems take months before help is on the way in the
    form of additional resources to solve problems. In those months, those
    problems have festered and gotten worse. We can do better as a
    community working with Congress to give some flexibility to government
    program managers that are developing these complex systems. One of the
    features is an ability to maintain a reserve that can be applied to a
    problem without months of delay.
        We still need to make improvements in our program management
    processes. While we have confidence in the overall skills and
    experience in our personnel, we need to establish processes that will
    improve our ability to manage our programs in this environment.
    Therefore, significant efforts are underway to identify and develop
    Space Professionals, particularly within the acquisition corps. The
    System Program Director (SPD)/Program Manager (PM), as the leader of
    the Government-Contractor team for a program, must be accountable and
    have the authority to accomplish the program's objectives and meet the
    user's needs. The Air Force recognizes that improving program
    management is critical for bringing program costs under control, and
    that such effective program management must include both contractor and
    Government program managers at all levels within their respective
    organizations. Further, these managers must be empowered to make not
    just the routine but also the controversial decisions based on timely,
    accurate, and complete information. We are also addressing continuity
    by instituting controlled tours for SPDs/PMs at Space and Missile
    Systems Center (SMC). Another aspect of growing our team of space
    professionals is continuing to improve system engineering training and
    discipline. The formation of SMC's Systems Engineering Center is a
    positive first step that we need to continue to cultivate in order to
    grow our cadre of experienced space systems engineers.
        The NSS 03-01 policy documents several principles important to
    controlling and managing costs of our space systems. First is using
    mission success as the primary driver when assessing risks and trades
    among cost, schedule and performance. Mission success drives risk
    management, test planning, system engineering and funding profiles. The
    second principle centers on credibility. The NSS process is meant to
    encourage incentives and foster quality decision making for programs
    that exhibit necessary maturity to proceed into the next acquisition
    phase. The third principle, cost realism, is key in that the cost
    estimating capability shall be independent and accomplished in a
    timely, realistic, and complete manner. Finally, the new Joint
    Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process helps
    program managers address cost growth driven by uncontrolled
    requirements growth by taking steps to ensure stability and
    predictability in identifying requirements for the acquisition
    community. To ensure warfighter input prior to firming up design
    concepts, NSS 03-01 requires a Joint Requirements Oversight Council-
    approved Initial Capability Development Document (CDD) prior to
    entering the concept development phase. A refined CDD is required prior
    to commencement of the preliminary design phase.
        Although we have the ability to generate good cost estimates today,
    we need to merge this with better schedule estimating to come up with
    better phasing of near-year estimates. The nature of our
    transformational space programs means that problems that are common to
    all acquisitions are significantly greater due to their degree of
    complexity. We need to ensure that program managers get good data as
    early as possible to make informed decisions.
        While cost estimating is not an exact science, we've put in place a
    system to ensure past experience and solid costing methods are used and
    will lead to realistic cost numbers. The Independent Cost Estimate
    (ICE) is effective in giving the program's milestone decision authority
    (MDA) a comprehensive estimate. All elements of cost are considered
    when deciding when or if to proceed with a space system. The ICE is a
    requirement for each Defense Space Acquisition Board (DSAB) meeting
    when the MDA approves the program's entrance into the next phase of the
    space acquisition process. We will continue to apply rigor in budgeting
    to the ICE, with the goal of securing additional management reserve to
    plan for the unforeseen issues that are certain to arise.

                                  SPACE RADAR

        Question. Last year, the Appropriations Conference report expressed
    concern over the ability of the Space Radar (formerly the Space Based
    Radar) program to attain its goal of ``global persistent surveillance''
    and whether the system is affordable. What changes has the Air Force
    implemented to make this a viable and affordable program?
        Answer. We have formulated and revised our fiscal year 2005 funding
    plan and redirected our prime contractors to comply with last year's
    Congressional language.
        We plan to achieve a militarily significant level of global
    persistent surveillance through horizontal integration with other
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms and
    target characterization technologies. Horizontal integration allows us
    to tip and cue targets of interest to air and space ISR platforms
    passing ``target custody'' to the best situated collector to satisfy
    the mission. In addition, when other ISR platforms are not available,
    we can use target characterization to re-identify targets in subsequent
    Space Radar (SR) satellite passes over an area of responsibility. The
    number of satellites required to support this ``custody'' Concept of
    Operation (CONOP) for persistence is significantly fewer than that
    required for a tracking CONOP, consequently reducing overall program
    costs while delivering equivalent utility to DOD and intelligence
    community users.
        In addition, in order to improve affordability, we have made major
    program changes such as the establishment of SR as a single acquisition
    program that would satisfy both the DOD and Intelligence Community
    needs. This single shared system would eliminate the need for two
    programs or funding lines, thereby eliminating duplication of costs.
    Another fundamental change was to increase the focus on developing the
    Electronically Steered Array and other advanced technologies as part of
    an overall risk reduction framework culminating in an on-orbit
    demonstration to reduce technical and cost uncertainties. An
    Independent Technology Assessment Panel was also formed to explore
    concepts that could dramatically affect the SR cost-benefit equation.
    Results of this effort are due summer of fiscal year 2005. We are also
    evaluating architecture options concentrating on reuse of existing
    infrastructure to minimize SR ground investment costs.
        Over the span of five months, we ensured that contract
    modifications were in place that would shift the majority of funding to
    risk reduction efforts. The implementation of these efforts is intended
    to address the fiscal year 2005 Congressional language and their
    culmination will lead to a more affordable SR architecture.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                          TACTICAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

        Question. The Air Force and the Air National Guard have the
    critical mission of air traffic control in operational theaters. These
    airmen perform a difficult mission. However, the equipment the air
    traffic controllers use was developed long before many of them were
    born. Could you describe the efforts the Air Force is taking to
    modernize tactical air traffic control systems for the Air Force and
    the Air Guard?
        Answer. The Air Force is modernizing Air Force and Air National
    Guard tactical air traffic control (ATC) systems by acquiring a new
    mobile air traffic control radar known as the Mobile Approach Control
    System (MACS). MACS will replace the Air Force's 1970's vintage TPN-19
    and the Air National Guard's 1960's vintage MPN-14K analog radar
    systems. Due to their advanced age, the TPN-19 and MPN-14K have many
    obsolete components. The difficulty in obtaining replacement parts has
    made these aging systems difficult and expensive to maintain and has
    resulted in operational availability rates of only 70-85 percent, far
    short of the 98 percent availability standard. MACS will be easier and
    less costly to deploy, requiring only three C-130s to airlift it versus
    seven for the TPN-19 and MPN-14K. The digital systems in MACS will
    allow it to share radar information with other ATC and non-ATC systems,
    a capability not provided by the currently fielded systems. This could
    enhance our ability to provide the type of en route ATC we found we
    needed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        Question. The Air Force and the Air National Guard have the
    critical mission of air traffic control in operational theaters. These
    airmen perform a difficult mission. However, the equipment the air
    traffic controllers' use was developed long before many of them were
    born. Is the Air Force capable of meeting the combatant commanders'
    tactical air traffic control needs with the current arcane system?
        Answer. Although the Air Force has not lost any missions due to air
    traffic control, our maintenance downtime is significant and we have
    been fortunate to have relatively good weather when our systems have
    needed repair. The current Air Force and Air National Guard systems are
    operational 70-85 percent of the time, while the benchmark goal is for
    them to be available at least 98 percent of the time.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                        UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)

        Question. I have been advised that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    is considering designating the Air Force as the DOD Executive Agent for
    unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Why do you believe Executive Agency is
    necessary? And why is the Air Force the best candidate to take control
    of UAVs?
        Answer. The United States Air Force (USAF) is not in a position to
    speak for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the agency with
    responsibility of determining the requirement for any Executive
    Agency's establishment. The USAF would, however, welcome the
    synchronization and harmonization of UAV efforts across DOD that should
    result from OSD's establishment of a UAV Executive Agent. Of the
    Services, the USAF is in the unique position of possessing the
    necessary airspace, intelligence, and aviation frequency management
    experience necessary to coordinate and synchronize UAVs across the
    Joint Force. No other Service has as much expertise in coordinating the
    use of airspace and air-developed Intelligence, Surveillance &
    Reconnaissance in peacetime and warfare to support the Soldier, Marine,
    Sailor, and Airman from foxhole to near space and beyond.
        Question. How does the warfighter benefit from this effort to take
    UAV work away from one Service and consolidate it with a Service with
    less experience?
        Answer. Should the Office of the Secretary of Defense decide to
    create a UAV Executive Agent, the warfighter will benefit from the
    resulting synchronization and integration of UAV systems and the
    effects they create on the joint battlefield. Rather than seen as
    moving UAV work between Services, Executive Agency is more properly
    framed as coordination and synchronization of air assets and the
    effects they generate, regardless of type and size, to produce the
    capabilities required by the Joint Force today and far into the future.
    Thus an Executive Agent would aid but not subsume the work of any
    Service by coordinating efforts across the DOD in areas such as
    airspace management and the collection and distribution of UAV
    generated information.
        Question. Setting up a single authority for all Service UAVs is the
    unmanned equivalent of establishing an Executive Agent for all manned
    aircraft. How do you justify this?
        Answer. Today, we find ourselves in circumstances similar to the
    early development of manned flight, a debate over aviation-produced
    effects on the battlefield. Experience and debate over time has created
    an imprecise and often overlapping synchronization of aviation roles
    and missions across the Services. Currently, we are in the infancy of
    UAV development; each Service is rapidly expanding the role UAVs play
    in contributing to joint warfighting capabilities. UAVs, like all
    aircraft, pose the capability of operating and creating effects at all
    levels of warfare, often simultaneously, regardless of size or Service
    affiliation. Projected DOD budgets and rapidly increasing UAV's
    capabilities mean that the coordination of UAV roles and missions
    within the DOD will become increasingly necessary in the future. The
    designation of one agent to ensure the DOD does not squander its
    resources by creating unnecessarily redundant capabilities early in the
    history of UAVs will head off much of the debate and duplication of
    effort which has resulted from the service-centric development of
    manned aircraft.
        Question. What percent of tactical UAVs are currently being
    employed by the Air Force in theater?
        Answer. Tactical UAV is defined as anything smaller than a
    Predator. Currently, the Air Force has 53 percent of our Air Force
    Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and Security Forces small tactical
    UAVs supporting the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Specifically, AFSOC
    has 22 of 54 (41 percent) systems and Security Forces has 17 of 20 (85
    percent) systems in support of the GWOT.
        Question. Your staff provided my office with no statistics on
    flight hours for Air Force ``small UAVs.'' We were told the ``Air Force
    does not keep these types of statistics for its small UAVs.'' How can
    you defend the decision to make the Air Force Executive Agent over
    tactical UAVs when you don't even log the minuscule amount of flight
    hours for your own tactical UAVs?
        Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is currently
    defining what a UAV Executive Agent's role would be in the event one is
    designated. The designation of specific UAVs as tactical--operational--
    or strategic is artificial. In many cases the designation small and
    large is also ambiguous, since size may improperly characterize the
    impact of the capability the UAV provides. However, the Air Force does
    capture flying hour costs associated with tactical UAVs considered
    Major Weapons Systems (MWS) such as Predator. Funding for ``small''
    tactical UAVs, which are not designated as MWS aircraft, are captured
    at the unit-level due to their very low operational costs. All Services
    are moving toward what is envisioned, as a net-centric form of warfare
    where information developed from any source is available to everyone
    with access to the network. This means that UAVs of every sort and size
    will be providing information to the Global Information Grid. The
    United States Air Force (USAF) has the preponderance of experience
    within the DOD in management of airspace and the collection and
    distribution of air generated information. Debate over UAV Executive
    Agency is more properly framed as coordination and synchronization of
    air assets and the effects they generate, regardless of type and size,
    to produce the capabilities required by the Joint Force today and far
    into the future. The USAF is the Service with the most experience in
    managing airspace and the collection and distribution of air generated
    information. The USAF stands ready to perform the Executive Agency role
    if called upon by OSD.
        Question. Without flight information, doesn't this basically mean
    you don't even know how, where, and when your own UAVs are flying?
        Answer. The lack of flight information referenced in this question
    is not well defined. In the past, the management of UAVs was not like
    that of fixed wing aircraft. One of the lessons learned from the
    unexpected proliferation of UAVs is the need to, in some but not all
    cases, coordinate UAVs like fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
    Operationally, several UAV aircraft fly above the coordination altitude
    on a battlefield and all are tracked at the Joint Force Air Component
    Commander's Air Operations Center. They are flown in accordance with
    the Air Tasking Order, providing visibility and accountability on how,
    where, when and why they are flown. Backpack UAVs, on the other hand,
    are designed to be launched and controlled by personnel engaging in a
    fluid tactical environment, and are de-conflicted in most cases by
    flying below the coordination altitude. Taking into account the limited
    capability of these smaller UAVs and the nascent stage of net-centric
    warfare, current airspace coordination procedures do not require the
    Services to specifically track how, when, and where backpack UAVs are
    flying. Requiring tactical users to integrate their use on the
    battlefield below the required airspace coordination altitude would
    currently place an undue burden on the Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and
    Sailors operating them. In the future, the proliferation of these UAVs
    on the battlefield, and their increasing payload capabilities, may
    require coordination and monitoring within, and across, all the
    Services and Agencies engaged in joint warfare.

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Question. Future Total Force (FTF), as currently proposed by the
    Air Force, presents a significant challenge to our citizen-airmen
    because it disproportionably impacts the Air National Guard. Currently,
    the Air National Guard maintains at least one flying unit in every
    state. This structure is a vital component to homeland defense.
        How do you propose securing our homeland or responding to a major
    disaster when no units are available to our Governors because FTF has
    removed them?
        Answer. Homeland defense is the most vital mission responsibility
    of the United States Air Force, and for that reason, the Air Force
    looked very closely at what capabilities are and will be required for
    that mission. Those capabilities requirements were identified and
    separated out of the mix so as not to be jeopardized throughout the FTF
    analysis process. In other words, at no time will the capabilities
    requirements necessary to provide homeland defense be vulnerable to
    divestments or reorganization efforts.
        It is important to point out that exempting the capabilities
    required for homeland defense does not necessarily isolate a particular
    unit or installation from divestments or reorganization efforts. There
    are many considerations that will help determine which units and
    installations will be selected for FTF implementation, but primary
    among these will be the impact on the Air Force's ability to provide
    homeland security.
        The FTF is a twenty-year plan. It will evolve over time and will in
    fact enhance the Air Force's ability to protect the homeland.
        Question. Under the Future Total Force plan, there appears to be a
    significant time lapse between when airframes are removed from a unit,
    and when that same unit would receive a follow-on mission. What do you
    propose to do with those airmen in that timeframe?
        Answer. First, a little background on the Air Force's effort to
    meet the concurrent challenges of increasingly complex threats to our
    national security and budget pressures, two issues with which you are
    very familiar. Last year, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to
    submit a 20-year Force Structure Plan. Based on two assumptions: (1)
    the capabilities required for the future and (2) the anticipated levels
    of funding for the Department of Defense. After a significant two-year
    internal Air Force debate (including full participation from the Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve at many points along the
    development process), the Air Force submitted its proposed plan for the
    Future Total Force (FTF). This plan recommended divesting the oldest
    and least capable aircraft in our inventory. These older and less
    capable aircraft are predominately located in Air National Guard units.
        It is important to note that simply identifying the oldest
    platforms for divestment does not mean there won't be other platforms
    that will ``roll-down'' to replace the current systems. Discussions to
    this effect have been ongoing during the Base Realignment and Closure
    (BRAC) deliberation process. However, these deliberations, by law,
    cannot be made public until recommendations are given to the BRAC
    committee in May of 2005. The planned divestment of aircraft will
    happen over a 20-year timeframe. If we are going to eliminate a
    particular mission and it is replaced with another mission, we will
    time that transition so as to avoid a costly lag period that would
    leave a unit without a mission. In short, we will ensure that units
    have a meaningful mission to meet the needs of the Nation. In addition,
    analysis included the very important requirements of the Homeland
    Defense missions and other State roles performed by our Air National
    Guard units.
        Question. Recruitment for the National Guard is down. Would you
    agree that removing units from states, therefore forcing Guardsmen to
    travel long distances for drill weekends, will only hurt recruitment?
        Answer. Yes. Recruiting is currently down in the Air National
    Guard, specifically non-prior service (NPS) recruiting. Currently, only
    meeting 65 percent of NPS goal to date.
        We do understand that removing units from states will not only
    affect recruiting, but retention as well. As we transition through
    Future Total Force and Base Realignment And Closure, we will be asking
    our members to move, retrain into another career field, or leave
    earlier than expected. We do anticipate some unexpected losses, thus
    having to recruit to these losses. However, we must move forward with
    these transitions to new missions to not only remain relevant, but to
    also support the war fighter of the future.
        Our plan to combat this potential problem is to use all the
    personnel force management tools available, to include incentives,
    transition authorities, and training opportunities. Additionally,
    leadership will undoubtedly play a large role in the transition to new
    missions. We will continue to take great care of our members, as we
    have in the past. We have always had one of the best retention rates
    and plan to keep it that way.
        Question. Recruitment for the National Guard is down. Do you have
    any plan as to how you will combat this problem?
        Answer. Yes. Recruiting is currently down in the Air National
    Guard, specifically non-prior service (NPS) recruiting. Currently, only
    meeting 65 percent of NPS goal to date.
        We do understand that removing units from states will not only
    affect recruiting, but retention as well. For example, prior to the
    move of the 126th Air Refueling Wing (ARW) from Chicago, Illinois to
    Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, their unit end strength was 104.2
    percent. After we moved the unit, their end strength dropped to 83.3
    percent. Over 25 percent of the 126th ARW personnel were lost due to
    the move. It took five years to return the end strength of the unit to
    previous levels.
        As we transition through Future Total Force and Base Realignment
    And Closure, we will be asking our members to move, retrain into
    another career field, or leave earlier than expected. We do anticipate
    some unexpected losses, thus having to recruit to these losses.
    However, we must move forward with these transitions to new missions to
    not only remain relevant, but to also support the war fighter of the
    future.
        Our plan to combat this potential problem is to use all the
    personnel force management tools available, to include incentives,
    transition authorities, storefront recruiters, and training
    opportunities. Additionally, leadership will undoubtedly play a large
    role in the transition to new missions. We will continue to take great
    care of our members, as we have in the past. We have always had one of
    the best retention rates and plan to keep it that way.
        Question. It is my understanding that the Guard will lose 60
    percent of their airframes due to the newer F-22 and JSF coming on-
    line. In the past, both the Air Force and Guard leadership have stated
    that due to FTF, end strength won't be reduced. However, if there are
    fewer planes, and therefore less airtime for the same amount of Guard
    personnel, what will these Guardsmen be doing?
        Answer. First, a little background on the Air Force's effort to
    meet the concurrent challenges of increasingly complex threats to our
    national security and budget pressures, two issues with which you are
    very familiar. Last year, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to
    submit a 20-year Force Structure Plan. Based on two assumptions: (1)
    the capabilities required for the future and (2) the anticipated levels
    of funding for the Department of Defense.
        After a significant two-year internal Air Force debate (including
    full participation from the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve at
    many points along the development process), the Air Force submitted its
    proposed plan for the Future Total Force (FTF). This plan recommended
    divesting the oldest and least capable aircraft in our inventory. These
    older and less capable aircraft are predominately located in Air
    National Guard units. Again, our Force Structure Plan does not
    specifically identify who would have responsibility for the particular
    equipment under a specific organizational construct, or where the
    remaining aircraft will be based. It is important to note that simply
    identifying the oldest platforms for divestment does not mean there
    won't be other platforms that will ``roll-down'' to replace the current
    systems. Discussions to this effect have been ongoing during the Base
    Realignment And Closure (BRAC) deliberation process.
        The planned divestment of aircraft will happen over a 20-year
    timeframe. If we are going to eliminate a particular mission and it is
    replaced with another mission, we will time that transition so as to
    avoid a costly lag period that would leave a unit without a mission. In
    short, we will ensure that units have a meaningful mission to meet the
    needs of the Nation. In addition, analysis included the very important
    requirements of the Homeland Defense missions and other State roles
    performed by our Air National Guard units.
        Another aspect of the FTF plan is to increase the ``association''
    of all three Components--Active, Guard and Reserve, in order to produce
    the most effective organizations and preserve the benefits of the
    highly experienced Guard and Reserve personnel. One example is the
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force FTF Test Initiative at Langley Air
    Force Base where the Virginia Air National Guard's 192nd Fighter Wing
    will begin to fly the F/A-22 at the same time as the Active Duty in an
    Associate Unit arrangement with the 1st Fighter Wing. This
    fundamentally changes an old paradigm of putting Guard and Reserve in
    ``hand-me down'' systems and instead puts them in front line systems
    with decades of relevancy. In addition to units such as the association
    at Langley, an important part of our plan is to increase the number of
    ``active associate'' units. That is, units in which an Active Duty unit
    is located at a Guard or Reserve location. The Air Force is highly
    cognizant of the value our Air Reserve Component bases bring to their
    surrounding communities, as well as the sensitivities to considerations
    such as recruiting demographics our Reserve and Guard Components must
    enjoy in order to be successful. Please know that the FTF effort is
    mindful of the different cultures that reside across our three.
        Question. Do you really believe a trained pilot or maintainer would
    happily take a desk job?
        Answer. The Future Total Force (FTF) vision does not simply mean
    taking flying missions away from the Air National Guard without a
    viable, meaningful mission to replace it. In fact, units of all
    components of the Air Force face significant change as we work to shape
    the optimal force to meet future threats.
        The FTF will guarantee that both the Air Force Reserve and Air
    National Guard are full partners as new weapons systems like the F/A-22
    and Joint Strike Fighter come on line. In addition, our reserve
    components will be key players as we adopt emerging technologies to
    fight the fight of the future, allowing them to be involved in these
    exciting new missions, yet taking advantage of the ``reachback'' these
    missions provide, minimizing the need for disruptive mobilizations.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. Our next hearing of the Defense
    Subcommittee will be a closed session to discuss the 2006
    budget request for intelligence. That's scheduled for April 13.
    A classified memo will be available to Senators for review,
    beginning Monday, April 11. The memo is located in Dirksen,
    119. Arrangements can be made for individual Senators to view
    that memo elsewhere if they contact the staff.
        We do appreciate both of you for being here with us today,
    and your brevity, and wish to thank you, again, for your
    service, and thank you for, through you, all the men and women
    who wear your uniform so well.
        General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., Wednesday, April 6, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                 National Guard

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

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We are pleased to
    have the opportunity to be with you this morning. We have just
    had the privilege of meeting them and having a photograph with
    them, but let me introduce to all who are here, and will you
    please stand when I call your name: First Lieutenant Reginald
    Brownlee of the Mississippi Army National Guard; Sergeant First
    Class Tara Niles, Illinois Army National Guard; Michelle
    Nelson, who is the spouse of Captain Mark Nelson, who is
    currently deployed with the Third Battalion of the 116th
    Infantry in Afghanistan, who is working with us on family
    affairs; Staff Sergeant Benjamin Moore of the Texas Air
    National Guard; and Staff Sergeant Charles Post of the Vermont
    Air National Guard.
        Thank you very much for being with us and thank you for
    your service. We all are delighted to have you here this
    morning. Thank you very much.
        This morning we are going to review the National Guard and
    Reserve programs. We have two panels scheduled. First we will
    hear from the National Guard leadership and then from the
    leaders of the four Reserve forces. I want to tell you all that
    we are in session now and we are going on the supplemental
    bill. We do not know when--we know the first hour we will not
    have amendments, but right after that we will start amendments
    and probably voting fairly early this morning.
        Our first panel consists of: Lieutenant General Steven
    Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General
    Roger Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard; Lieutenant
    General Daniel James, Director of the Air National Guard. We
    welcome you all this morning and thank you for what you have
    done in working with us.
        We want to acknowledge, General Schultz, this is your final
    appearance, as we understand it, before the subcommittee. I am
    told you are retiring after 42 years of service. I have told
    others, my first father-in-law told me: Only in the English
    language does the word ``retire'' mean other than go to bed. So
    do not retire, General; just go to another job, okay. We thank
    you very much for your dedication and leadership and for your
    future endeavors.
        I have a substantial introduction here, but I think I will
    yield to our co-chairman and see if he has remarks.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Well, I would like to join you in welcoming
    our witnesses this morning. We have entered a new era in our
    Nation's military history. Your forces are spread around the
    globe and serving here at home by the thousands. Never before
    in our history has the Nation demanded so much from our Reserve
    component in a period where we are not at world war.
        By all accounts, your forces have responded magnificently.
    The integration of Reserve forces by combatant commanders in
    Afghanistan and Iraq has been seamless and the bravery
    displayed by your members has been most impressive. All of you
    here today, especially those young men and ladies, should be
    congratulated for the jobs you have done in preparing the men
    and women under your command for the challenges that they have
    met and continue to meet every day.
        I believe every Member of the Senate would concur in
    offering you and those who serve the utmost thanks.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, I have, as you have indicated, a rather
    lengthy opening statement, but I just want to say that we are
    very proud of the officers and men of the Reserves components.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses
    today. Gentlemen we have entered a new era in our Nation's
    military history. Your forces are spread around the globe and
    serving here at home by the thousands. Never before in our
    history has the Nation demanded so much from our Reserve
    component in a period where we were not in a world war.
        By all accounts your forces have responded magnificently.
    The integration of Reserve forces by combatant commanders in
    Afghanistan and Iraq has been seamless. The bravery displayed
    by your members has been most impressive.
        All of you here today are to be congratulated for the jobs
    you have done in preparing the men and women under your command
    for the challenges that they have met and continue to meet
    every day. I believe every Member of the Senate would concur in
    offering you and those who serve with you our utmost thanks.
        But as I say this, I know that the challenges facing our
    Reserve component are many and growing.
        We know that many of you are facing recruiting
    difficulties.
        We are aware of rising concerns that our returning
    reservists may be hard to retain in your units.
        We know that shortfalls of equipment are likely to exist
    for those units when they return from service overseas.
        We understand that some Reserve units that have been called
    to deploy overseas more than once since 9/11.
        We know the stress and strain that our reservists, their
    families, and employers are experiencing from this
    unprecedented level of utilization.
        So today gentlemen, we are here to hear your concerns and
    your proposals to right some of these problems that we see
    today and can expect in the future.
        This is your opportunity to enlighten us on your challenges
    and your ideas. I very much look forward to your testimony
    today. Mr. Chairman, thank you the opportunity to hear from
    these much admired leaders.

        Senator Stevens. Let me recognize the chairman of the full
    committee, Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
    pleased to join you and Senator Inouye this morning in
    welcoming our witnesses and thanking them and all who they
    represent for their great service to our country in this time
    of serious need. We appreciate the service of those who have
    been deployed to the theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq and
    elsewhere around the world. They are achieving great success in
    helping create a pathway to freedom and democracy and a world
    that will be free from terror for generations to come, and we
    appreciate that commitment very much.
        I am glad to see Lieutenant Brownlee from Mississippi among
    the group that you introduced at the beginning of the hearing.
    We are proud of him, as we are all of those who are serving
    from all of our States.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Dorgan.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will ask some questions
    following the statements, but I did want to add to the comments
    of the Senator from Mississippi. I think we have called on the
    National Guard and Reserve for an unprecedented commitment
    recently. They have performed in a spectacular way. I am very
    proud of the men and women of the National Guard.
        General Schultz, thank you for your service. We wish you
    well in your retirement.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too
    look forward to hearing the testimony of our outstanding
    witnesses. Like my colleagues, I just want to express my
    gratitude for the National Guard, truly the citizen soldiers
    who, serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, have served nobly, but are
    also right now in my home State of Maryland ready to do
    whatever our Governor demands that they need to do, either in
    support of national responsibilities or our State. Of course,
    with General Blum, he is a Maryland guy. We have been together
    for some time and we are so very proud of his leadership here,
    and of course General Tuxell of our Maryland National Guard.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am glad
    to see they are here. I have worked with General Schultz and
    General Blum and General James. They know Vermont and the
    Vermont Guard. We are very proud of them. I am also glad we
    have a Vermonter, Sergeant Post, sitting in the front row.
        General Schultz, I am going to miss you, but you can leave
    your office with the flags flying proudly for what you have
    done. I will continue to work with you.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Bond and I are the co-chairs of the
    National Guard Caucus and we have worked very hard with these
    gentlemen. I think all of us on the subcommittee are fortunate.
        I know with more than one-third of our Vermont Guard
    mobilized, I am glad that we have leadership like you. Thank
    you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        As I met those young people, my mind went back to the time
    when Senator Stennis was chairman of this committee and he
    asked Senator Hollings and me to go to Europe to find out about
    the morale of our people there. That was in the early 70s and
    we were at war in Vietnam. We were drafting a great many young
    people and an enormous number of them were in Europe,
    unaccompanied tours.
        We went over there and found that many of them were married
    and their wives had followed them and they were living in third
    and fourth floor what we called cold water flats, but the
    morale was terrible.
        Now we see the great advantage of relying on Americans to
    volunteer. This force that you all command, totally volunteers.
    That makes us doubly proud of them because they have signed up
    to defend our country. So we are honored to have these young
    folks with us this morning.
        General Schultz, you are first, I believe, in presentation.
    May we call upon you--or was it you, General Blum? Who goes
    first?
        General Blum. Whichever, Mr. Chairman. We will go in
    whatever order you would like.
        Senator Stevens. No, no. You wear the stars; you tell me
    which is going first.
        General Blum. I will go ahead and start.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. General Blum.
        General Blum. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting us today to speak before you, and we
    anxiously will await questions at the conclusion. We would ask
    that our formal statements be entered in the record.
        As you all have stated, and I am so glad that you are
    aware, we are a Nation at war and your National Guard is in
    this war shoulder to shoulder with the active component. As
    each and every one of you know, you have combat brigades from
    Mississippi, Hawaii, just off of this committee, and every
    single member here has soldiers that I have just seen since
    Easter in Iraq, doing magnificently well, performing in an
    exemplary manner in a combat zone.
        As a matter of fact, over one-half, over one-half, of the
    Army's combat power in Iraq today is Army National Guard,
    citizen soldiers from eight brigade combat teams. Eight brigade
    combat teams are on the ground in Iraq and one of the division
    headquarters from the National Guard, the 42nd Rainbow
    Division, is in Iraq today. So they are shouldering over one-
    half of the load and they are doing exceedingly well.
        The National Guard, as you might imagine, has had to
    transform from what used to be a strategic reserve to an
    operational force that can deliver these kinds of numbers to
    the Air Force and the Army and to the combatant commanders
    overseas. As Senator Mikulski noted, they are not only in Iraq
    and Afghanistan; they are in Kosovo and Bosnia and the Sinai
    and Guantanamo and, as a matter of fact, 44 other nations as of
    this morning.
        The National Guard is rebalancing to ensure that the
    Governors and the President has the National Guard that either
    the Governor needs day to day in the homes, in the States and
    the territories, or the President needs to be a Federal reserve
    of the Army or the Air Force and provide forces and
    capabilities to the combatant commanders.
        The Air Guard continues to be involved in what the Air
    Force labels as the future total force and trying to determine
    what the Air Force of the future will look like in the next 20
    years.
        Let there be no mistake, our first and primary mission is
    homeland defense. You cannot be the National Guard and not be
    concerned with, not be concerned about defending the homeland.
    It has to be mission one for us, but it is not the only thing
    we do and it is not the mission that we have to perform at the
    exclusion of being able to be a Federal reserve of the Army or
    the Air Force.
        The Guard supports emergency response managers in every
    State and territory in this Nation. We have committed to the
    Governors that we will never have less than one-half of the
    capability available to the Governor in that State or territory
    to do the protection of the citizens of those States and
    territories, either from terrorist acts or the ravages of
    Mother Nature that routinely come through our States and
    territories.
        However, while the Air Force and the Army and the
    Department of Defense are keenly interested in ensuring that we
    have the equipment for the overseas war fight, we need to also
    make sure that they remain as keenly interested in providing us
    the equipment that we need so that we can retain these soldiers
    that come back from Afghanistan and Iraq, the most experienced
    force we have ever had, come back and have the equipment to
    train on for the next time they are needed, and to have the
    capability to deliver to the Governor; if something untoward
    should occur in a State or a territory, they would have the
    right capabilities with the right equipment.
        So I would ask your attention and your assistance in
    ensuring that the reset or the reequipping of the Army National
    Guard and the Air National Guard after they come out of the
    combat zone to replace the equipment that was either asked to
    be left in theater, rightfully so, or worn out through fair
    wear and tear in very harsh conditions, or battle damaged, is
    restored so that when they come home we have more than just
    people coming home, we have capabilities coming back home to
    the National Guard that can be called upon, maybe even this
    evening if necessary.
        Since October 2003, every single State has established a
    standing joint force headquarters, which is absolutely right
    when you are talking about how you are going to defend the
    homeland. This enables each Governor and each adjutant general
    of every State and territory the ability to leverage the joint
    capabilities of its Army and its Air National Guard, as well as
    the other Department of Defense assets that may be located in
    that State or territory and, beyond the military, it also
    allows them to have the relationships and exercise the
    capabilities with the inter-agencies that exist and the
    intergovernmental partners that will be so important in the
    defense of our homeland.
        We have established 12 regional chemical, biological,
    radiological, and nuclear high-yield explosive enhanced
    response force packages that, when they are pulled together,
    give this Nation the capability to have, not one chemical
    biological incident response force (CBIRF) capable unit, but 13
    CBIRF capable units. They are trained and equipped by the U.S.
    Marine Corps CBIRF and the First and Fifth United States Armies
    have certified their fitness and their readiness to respond to
    weapons of mass destruction effects or any other things that
    might require their special skills.
        As you all know, recruiting has been a special challenge
    for the National Guard. This should not be a surprise to
    anyone. We were resourced, we had policies. We are a recruited
    force. But that was all set up for a National Guard that was a
    strategic reserve. So we have been scrambling along with the
    Congress in the last year and a half to make sure that we had
    the authorities and the resources we need to actually compete
    head to head in an environment where we have to be an
    operational force.
        I want to thank this subcommittee and the other Members of
    Congress for the authorities that you have extended us, the
    reasonable changes that have been made, and the ample resources
    that you have provided us. We are not yet out of the woods, but
    we are starting on the road to recovery. We had a very good
    recruiting month in the month of March. It looks like we are
    going to have another good recruiting month in the month of
    April.
        This would not have been possible if you had not given us
    those authorities and not given us the resources that we needed
    in terms of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. There is one
    bonus floating out there I would ask you to look very hard at,
    and that is a bonus that is an affiliation bonus that allows
    someone from active duty to transition directly into the
    National Guard without having to be discharged and processed
    from active duty and then re-processed and spend taxpayers'
    money, several thousands of dollars, to bring them back into
    the system.
        I think if we were to offer a $15,000 bonus we would have
    something that provides us the bridge for a seamless transition
    from active duty to the National Guard and it would help us
    immeasurably in recovering our recruiting force from prior
    service, our most experienced recruits and the ones that are
    most valuable to us, because they are already trained. The
    training has already been paid for and they are proven
    performers.
        We have increased our enlistment and reenlistment bonuses.
    We have added 1,400 new recruiters. Thank you for allowing that
    to happen, and that is starting to make a significant
    difference in the production rates that we are experiencing in
    our recruiting force.
        Our Army National Guard units are not resources for high
    levels of readiness that today's environment demands. We had a
    full-time recruiting ramp--I mean a full-time force ramp, that
    probably was acceptable when we were a strategic reserve
    because it did assume some risk. It was not fully resourced at
    100 percent, but when you use it as an operational force I
    think it is time to relook at the full-time manning ramp for
    the National Guard because we cannot take risks. When the
    President calls us or the Governors call us to do the type of
    work they are asking for today, we cannot fail and we need that
    full-time manning to ensure the equipment and the training and
    the personnel are ready and available when needed. So I would
    please ask this subcommittee to look hard at that.
        Your Air National Guard is undergoing dramatic change and
    General James will talk about that in more detail in a few
    moments. The total force will provide a balanced force with
    proportional capabilities, but what concerns me, and I will say
    it outright, is that I am not certain that the Department of
    the Air Force and the Air Staff that is putting together this
    program really understands the essential element of a
    community-based Air National Guard.
        If you lose a community base, I think we will lose
    something very, very valuable to this Nation that we will not
    be able to reestablish in a time of need. I would ask that as
    this future total force comes together that we consider the
    goodness of community basing in that program.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        In closing, I would tell you that the Guard is undergoing
    change at an unprecedented rate, we are operating as a joint
    entity, and we are proud to serve as America's 21st century
    Minutemen and women, always ready, always there, and we
    anxiously await your questions. Thank you.
        [The statements follow:]

                                  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 March 11th, 2005.
    SGT Leonard Wade Adams, NC
    PVT Algernon Adams, SC
    SPC Segun F. Akintade, NY
    SPC Michael Andrade, RI
    SPC Azhar Ali, NY
    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
    SGT Michael Barry, KS
    SPC Todd M. Bates, OH
    SPC Alan Bean Jr., VT
    SGT Bobby E. Beasley, WV
    CPL Joseph Otto Behnke, NY
    SGT Aubrey D. Bell, AL
    SPC Bradley John Bergeron, LA
    SSG Harold D. Best, NC
    SGT Dennis J. Boles, FL
    SFC Craig A. Boling, IN
    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
    SPC Philip D. Brown, ND
    PFC Nathan P. Brown, NY
    PFC Paul J. Bueche, AL
    SPC Jimmy Dale Buie, AR
    SPC Alan J. Burgess, NH
    SGT Charles T. Caldwell, RI
    SSG Joseph Camara, MA
    SPC Jocelyn L. Carrasquillo, NC
    SGT Frank T. Carvill, NJ
    CAPT Christopher S. Cash, NC
    SPC Jessica L. Cawvey, IL
    SPC James A. Chance III, MS
    SSG William D. Chaney, IL
    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
    SFC Sean M. Cooley, MS
    SGT Alex J. Cox, TX
    SPC Carl F Curran, PA
    SPC Daryl Anthony Davis, FL
    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
    SPC Ryan E. Doltz, NJ
    SPC Thomas John Dostie, ME
    SPC Christopher M. Duffy, NJ
    SGT Christian Philip Engeldrum, NY
    SPC Michael Scott Evans II, LA
    SGT Justin L. Eyerly, OR
    SPC Huey P. Long Fassbender, LA
    CPT Arthur L. Felder, AR
    SPC Jon P. Fettig, ND
    SGT Damien Thai Ficek, WA
    SGT Jeremy J. Fischer, NE
    SPC David Michael Fisher, NY
    SGT Paul F. Fisher, IA
    SPC Craig S. Frank, MI
    SSG Bobby C. Franklin, GA
    SSG Jacob Frazier, IL
    SPC Armand L. Frickey, LA
    SGT Seth Kristian Garceau, IA
    SPC Tomas Garces, TX
    SGT Landis W. Garrison, IL
    SGT Christopher Geiger, PA
    SPC Christopher D. Gelineau, ME
    2LT Richard Brian Gienau, IL
    SPC Richard A. Goward, MI
    SGT Jamie A. Gray, VT
    1LT Robert L. Henderson II, KY
    SSG Kenneth Hendrickson, ND
    SPC James J. Holmes, MN
    SPC Jeremiah J. Holmes, ME
    SGT Jessica Marie Housby, IL
    SPC Robert William Hoyt, CT
    SSG Henry E. Irizarry, NY
    SPC Benjamin W. Isenberg, OR
    SPC William Jeffries, IN
    SPC David W. Johnson, OR
    SFC Michael Dean Jones, ME
    SPC Alain Louis Kamolvathin, NJ
    SPC Mark J. Kasecky, PA
    SPC James C. Kearney, IA
    PFC David M. Kirchoff, IA
    SGT Floyd G. Knighten Jr., LA
    SPC Joshua L. Knowles, IA
    SSG Lance J. Koenig, ND
    CW3 Patrick W. Kordsmeier, AR
    SFC William W. Labadie Jr., AR
    SGT Joshua S. Ladd, MS
    SPC Charles R. Lamb, IL
    CW4 Patrick Daniel Leach, SC
    PFC Ken W. Leisten, OR
    SSG Jerome Lemon, SC
    SPC Tiothy J. Lewis, VA
    SGT Jesse Marvin Lhotka, MN
    SPC Justin W. Linden, OR
    SPC Jeremy Loveless, AL
    SSG David L Loyd, TN
    CPT Robert Lucero, WY
    SPC Wai Phyo Lwin, NY
    SSG William Francis Manuel, LA
    SPC Joshua Samuel Marcum, AR
    PFC Ryan A. Martin, OH
    SPC Nicholas Conan Mason, VA
    SPC Patrick R. McCaffrey, Sr., CA
    1LT Erik S. McCrae, OR
    SPC Donald R. McCune, MI
    SPC Jeremy Wayne McHalffey, AR
    SPC Eric S. McKinley, OR
    SSG Heath A. McMillan, NY
    SPC Robert Allen McNail, MS
    SPC Kenneth A. Melton, MO
    SPC Michael G. Mihalakis, CA
    SFC Troy L. Miranda, AR
    SPC Dennis B. Morgan, NB
    SGT Shawna M. Morrison, IL
    SPC Clifford L. Moxley, PA
    SPC Warren Anthony Murphy, LA
    SPC Nathan W. Nakis, OR
    SPC Creig Lewis Nelson, LA
    SPC Joshua M. Neusche, MO
    SPC Paul Anthony Nicholas, CA
    SGT William J. Normandy, VT
    PFC Francis Chinomso Obaji, NY
    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 Michael C. Ottolini, CA
    PFC Kristian E. Parker, LA
    SGT Theodore L. Perreault, MA
    SSG David S. Perry, CA
    SGT Jacob Loren Pfingsten, MN
    SGT Ivory L. Phipps, IL
    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
    SPC Joseph Andrew Rahaim, MS
    SPC Eric U. Ramirez, CA
    SPC Christopher J. Ramsey, LA
    PFC Brandon Ramsey, IL
    SSG Jose Carlos Rangel, CA
    SSG Johnathan Ray Reed, LA
    SSG Aaron T. Reese, OH
    SPC Jeremy L. Ridlen, IL
    CPL John T. Rivero, FL
    SSG William Terry Robbins, AR
    SSG Alan Lee Rogers, UT
    SFC Daniel Romero, CO
    SFC Robert E. Rooney, NH
    SPC David L. Roustrum, NY
    SGT Roger D. Rowe, TN
    SPC David Alan Ruhren, VA
    CW4 William Ruth, MD
    SPC Lyle Wyman Rymer II, AR
    SPC Jeremiah W. Schmunk, WA
    SPC Jeffrey R. Shaver, WA
    SGT Kevin Sheehan, VT
    1LT Andrew Carl Shields, SC
    SPC Roshan ``Sean'' R. Singh, NY
    SPC Aaron J. Sissel, IA
    1LT Brian D. Slavenas, IL
    SGT Keith Smette, ND
    SGT Michael Antonio Smith, AR
    CPL Darrell L. Smith, IN
    CW4 Bruce A. Smith, IA
    Maj Gregory Stone, ID
    2LT Matthew R. Stoval, MS
    SSG Michael Sutter, IL
    SGT Robert Wesley Sweeney III, LA
    SGT Deforest L. Talbert, WV
    SFC Linda A. Tarango Griess, NE
    SPC Christopher M. Taylor, AL
    MSG Thomas R. Thigpen, Sr., GA
    1LT Jason Gray Timmerman, MN
    SGT Humberto F. Timoteo, NJ
    SPC Seth Randell Trahan, LA
    SPC Quoc Binh Tran, CA
    2LT Andre D. Tyson, CA
    PFC Daniel P. Unger, CA
    PFC Wilfredo Fernando Urbina, NY
    SGT Michael A. Uvanni, NY
    SGT Gene Vance Jr., WV
    1LT Michael W. Vega, CA
    PFC Kenneth Gri Vonronn, NY
    SSG Michael Scott Voss, NC
    PFC Brandon J. Wadman, FL
    SFC Mark C. Warren, OR
    SSG David J. Weisenburg, OR
    SPC Cody Lee Wentz, ND
    SPC Jeffrey M. Wershow, FL
    1LT Charles L. Wilkins III, OH
    SPC Michael L. Williams, NY
    SFC Christopher R. Willoughby, AL
    SSG Clinton L. Wisdom, KS
    SPC Robert A. Wise, FL
    SPC Michelle M. Witmer, WI
    SGT Elijah Tai Wah Wong, AZ
    SGT Roy A. Wood, FL

             Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum

                             CNGB EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Overview
        The National Guard is essential and engaged in our hometowns and
    across the globe.
        As of January 1st, there are more than 109,000 Army and Air
    National Guardsmen on active duty worldwide, with another 9,700 alerted
    and awaiting mobilization, and 2,900 more serving in a Title 32 or
    State Active Duty status. Over 240,000 guard members have been
    mobilized since September 11th. Today more than 40 percent of the
    forces on the ground in Iraq are Guard and Reserve, and that proportion
    is set to grow this year.
        We conduct peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai.
    We man the Avenger air defense batteries protecting our Nation's
    Capital, as well as Ground-based Mid-course Missile Defense
    interceptors in Alaska. We fly the vast majority of the air sovereignty
    missions over American cities.
        The Guard supports emergency responders and managers at local,
    state and regional levels. We respond to fires, floods, blizzards,
    tornadoes and hurricanes. We counter narco-terrorism, protect critical
    infrastructure, conduct airport and border security missions and defend
    against physical and cyber attacks on our homeland.
        We assist four combatant commanders as they engage in Theater
    Security Cooperation with our allies through our unique State
    Partnership Program, forging close bonds between our states and
    sovereign nations.
        We continue to invest in our nation's most precious resource, our
    youth, through the Starbase, About Face, Drug Demand Reduction and
    ChalleNGe programs.
        As the National Guard engages in every one of these endeavors, it
    also engages our families, employers, cities, towns and villages across
    this land--committing them to America's cause. When you call out the
    Guard, you call out America!
    Support the Warfight Anytime, Anywhere
        The Army National Guard is rapidly transforming from an under-
    resourced, Cold War, strategic reserve to an Operational Force ready
    for immediate employment across the full spectrum of the Global War on
    Terror.
        In the 1990s, our National Guard divisions were not even in the
    Army's war plans; today, the first Guard division headquarters to
    deploy to combat since the Korean War is on the ground in Iraq and
    commanding active duty, Guard and Reserve forces.
        We are rebalancing our forces in accordance with Army and Air Force
    requirements to ensure we have the right capabilities, in the right
    numbers, at the right places. We are converting, for example, our Cold
    War artillery into the military police, chemical, intelligence,
    surveillance and reconnaissance units we need for the current warfight.
    During the next three years, the Army National Guard will restructure
    to a Modular and Expeditionary force. No longer a ``legacy force'' or a
    strategic reserve, the Army Guard will have the same units and same
    equipment as the active Army. In order for this transformation to
    become a reality, it will require a long-term resource commitment on
    the part of Congress.
        The Air Guard continues to modernize, creating a more capable and
    versatile force that will ensure continued American dominance in air
    power for the next 20 years. Air National Guard planes carry most of
    the precision-guided munitions dropped in Iraq, the result of
    congressionally directed procurement of targeting pods that has given
    the Air Guard capabilities superior to those of many active Air Force
    units.
        The Guard's State Partnership Program provides a unique tool to
    strengthen our international alliances. This is a highly successful,
    direct military-to-military engagement program that has blossomed to
    embrace military-to-civilian and civilian-to-civilian interaction with
    48 countries around the globe. It supports the theater engagement
    efforts of the commanders of Pacific Command, European Command, Central
    Command and Southern Command, and it is in direct support of the
    National Security Strategy imperative that we deter forward in those
    four critical areas.
        More than 210 National Guardsmen and women have made the ultimate
    sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thousands have been injured. We
    as a nation must ensure that the military medical system treats our
    wounded with the utmost care and respect. We also have a responsibility
    to Guardsmen who are so critically injured that they cannot return to
    military service or their former civilian careers. We want to ensure
    they have a smooth transition to Veterans Administration care.
    Additionally, we will do everything within our abilities to assist them
    in obtaining civilian jobs compatible with their grave injuries. The
    National Guard took the first step by creating a position in every
    state dedicated to helping all catastrophically wounded veterans--
    regardless of service or component--make that transition and receive
    the benefits they are due. Wherever possible, we hire a seriously
    wounded veteran to perform this duty. We also reach out to employers
    across America to encourage them to hire our wounded heroes.
        A key aspect of the Guard's preparedness to go to war--or to
    provide service here at home--is the necessity to rearm and reequip our
    units as they return from abroad. Warfighting not only wears out
    equipment; in many cases, Guard units redeploying home are ordered to
    leave their equipment behind for follow-on forces. An Engineer company
    that returns home without bulldozers or earthmovers cannot train for
    the next deployment. It has trouble recruiting new Soldiers and is of
    diminished use to a governor in the event of an emergency. As
    operational tempo remains high across the Guard and we shift to
    becoming a no-notice or short-notice reserve, we cannot ignore the
    costs of ``resetting'' the force once it returns home. These costs,
    when added to the necessary expense of converting to modular and
    expeditionary units with equipment levels equal to those of their
    active Army counterparts, will be high--but will only increase if the
    inevitable is delayed.
    Homeland Defense: Here and Abroad for over 368 Years
        Mission One for the National Guard is Homeland Defense. The
    President, the governors, Congress and the Secretary of Defense have
    clearly insisted that the Guard be fully prepared to engage in Homeland
    Defense and to support Homeland Security missions while simultaneously
    engaged in combat overseas; in fact, they insist that we be more
    accessible than we've ever been in the past. Congress further enhanced
    the Guard's domestic Homeland Defense and Security mission capability
    in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act, by amending Title 32 of the U.S.
    Code to authorize the funding of homeland defense activities by the
    National Guard, upon approval of the Secretary of Defense.
        We have committed to the governors--our state Commanders in Chief--
    that the National Guard will have sufficient capabilities under their
    control to meet their needs. Those capabilities include key assets for
    command, control and immediate response--the Joint Force Headquarters,
    Civil Support Teams, rapid reaction forces, medical, aviation,
    decontamination and engineering units.
        At the state level, the Guard continues to strengthen ties with the
    Department of Homeland Security. In 23 states and territories, the
    Adjutant General serves as either the state Director of Emergency
    Management, the state Director of Homeland Security or both. The
    National Guard Bureau is also taking the lead in promoting increased
    sharing of interagency and intergovernmental intelligence. By using a
    host of communications and intelligence networks linked to each state
    Joint Forces Headquarters, we are rapidly achieving a nationwide,
    state-by-state Common Operating Picture.
        We are rebalancing forces among the states. Some of this is taking
    place across service lines; a medic is a medic, whether Army green or
    Air Force blue. The Joint National Guard Bureau will apportion medical,
    transportation, communication, police and other assets based on state
    needs--not just service-unique criteria.
        Innovative solutions to Homeland Defense and Security challenges
    led us to leverage many capabilities previously envisioned for use only
    in our federal warfighting role. A year ago, we conceptually spoke of
    leveraging these capabilities. Today, it is a reality. Every state now
    has reaction forces to rapidly respond to a governor's summons--a
    company of 125 Army or Air Guard personnel within four to eight hours;
    a battalion of 500 personnel within 24 to 36 hours.
        The Department of Defense has announced the activation of the final
    11 Civil Support Teams. As a result, every state, territory and the
    District of Columbia will have this full-time asset capable of
    deploying, detecting and advising civil authorities on managing the
    effects of a Weapons of Mass Destruction attack.
        Twelve regional Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
    high-yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Packages--modeled on the
    single existing Marine Corps unit--were established and subsequently
    certified by the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army. These force packages
    provide mass casualty decontamination, security and urban search and
    extraction in contaminated environment capabilities in addition to
    those of the Civil Support Team. The power of these response packages
    is that we leverage existing warfighting units in the Army and Air
    Guard by providing only modest amounts of additional equipment and
    training to create this critically needed, new capability.
        Since October 2003, every state has had a provisional standing
    Joint Force Headquarters with the capability to coordinate, synchronize
    and control all military efforts in support of the lead state, local or
    federal agency responding to a crisis. These headquarters proved
    themselves remarkably capable last year handling myriad challenges--
    from responding to multiple deadly hurricanes in Florida, to
    operational control of forces for border security during Operation
    Winter Freeze, to full-scale command and control of all federal and
    state military forces during three separate National Security Special
    Events--the G-8 summit and the Democratic and Republican National
    Conventions.
        The National Security Special Event command and control construct
    was a landmark achievement. For the first time in our nation's history,
    we attained unity of command for all military forces operating in
    support of a major security event--National Guard on state active duty,
    National Guard under USC Title 32 control, Army, Navy, Air Force and
    Marine Corps Title 10 forces--all commanded by a single National Guard
    commander from a state Joint Force Headquarters, operating in a joint,
    combined, intergovernmental and interagency environment.
        Once the mission statements of the 54 state Joint Force
    Headquarters, as well as the Joint National Guard Bureau, are formally
    approved, we will begin providing our personnel with the Joint
    Professional Military Education they require to most effectively serve
    in their role as the 54 forward deployed headquarters for homeland
    defense and security. We are well within reach of our goals to improve
    the Guard's readiness to fight the Global War on Terror both at home
    and abroad and provide greater value in terms of efficiencies and
    effectiveness to the citizens of the states and of the United States.
        Ground-based Midcourse Missile Defense interceptors, manned
    entirely by full-time members of the Alaska Army National Guard, have
    achieved limited operating capability at Fort Greeley. Similarly, the
    Air Guard continues the air sovereignty mission it has been conducting
    over this nation since September 2001, employing new facilities and new
    command and control infrastructure to improve the effectiveness of this
    mission. We continue to stand watch, as we have for nearly 400 years.
    Transformation for the 21st Century
        Transforming the Cold War-era mobilization process is a must in
    order to speed our shift from a strategic reserve to an operational
    force--and to increase Soldier retention.
        Last year, we promised the governors--and our Soldiers and Airmen--
    a more predictable model for operational rotations. This makes it
    easier to plan for which units will be available for homeland defense
    and helps Guard members, families and employers better understand and
    prepare for their own future. We began implementing our plan this year,
    distributing the burden of deployments among states and units as
    equitably as possible. Our goal is for every Guard member to know when
    and for how long they will deploy well in advance of their deployment
    date.
        Recruiting for the Army Guard has been a challenge this past year.
    We saw remarkably high levels of retention among Soldiers and Airmen
    who deploy overseas with their units. However, prior service
    enlistments are significantly down and recruiting new Soldiers has been
    difficult. With the extensive new resources devoted by Congress, we
    hope to once again meet our goals. As a result of this congressional
    attention, we dramatically increased enlistment and reenlistment
    bonuses and added 1,400 new recruiters across the nation--an increase
    of more than 50 percent over the 2,700 recruiters we had. There remain,
    however, continued inequities between the bonuses and entitlements for
    which the Guard and Reserve are eligible and those that the active
    component receives.
        Army Guard units are not resourced for the high level of readiness
    that today's environment demands. Since 9/11, over 75 percent of our
    divisional combat battalions--among the lowest resourced Army units--
    have been mobilized. Because of decades of maintaining units in
    peacetime at lower strength than authorized for wartime, nearly every
    Guard unit mobilized has required fillers. In effect, we are unable to
    mobilize a full-strength battalion without reducing the readiness of a
    second battalion.
        In order to transform to a modern operational force, we need to
    change this practice. The Army Guard needs to man its units like the
    active Army, at full wartime strength. While this means reducing the
    overall structure, the result will be fully manned units and a more
    ready and accessible National Guard.
        The number of aircraft in the Air National Guard will decrease as
    technologies increase capabilities. We will expand our medical,
    engineering, security and intelligence units through the Vanguard
    transformation program. The Air Guard also strives to increase its
    capabilities in joint operations through network-centric systems, such
    as the Enhanced Radio Location Reporting System--a means for tracking
    friendly units on the ground--and the Expeditionary Medical Support
    system--a highly mobile, integrated and multifunctional medical
    response suite that is currently in use in Iraq and is also ideal for
    rapid response here at home.
        The Guard is undergoing change at an unprecedented rate. We are
    operating as joint headquarters in the states and jointly at the
    National Guard Bureau. We are leveraging new capabilities from our
    warfighting units for Homeland Defense, adopting new missions such as
    civil support and missile defense, working with the Army to revamp the
    mobilization process and the way we man our units. We are rebalancing
    forces for both the federal and state missions--all while conducting
    the daily business of disaster response at home and peacekeeping and
    warfighting overseas. Your National Guard--the spirit of our Soldiers
    and Airmen, is indomitable!
        We are proud to serve as America's 21st Century Minutemen--always
    ready, always there!
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz

                ``SERVING A NATION AT WAR: AT HOME AND ABROAD''

    Message from the Director
        The Army National Guard is an integral and vital component of the
    United States Army. The Guard is organized, trained and resourced to
    support the President and Congress of the United States. Since
    September 11, 2001, the Army National Guard has provided trained and
    ready units across the entire nation and the globe. The Army National
    Guard commits to continued support of the Global War on Terrorism both
    at home and abroad.
        In 2004, the Army National Guard supported ongoing combat service
    in Iraq and Afghanistan, emergency service and reconstruction efforts
    in the aftermath of Florida's record number of hurricanes and enduring
    missions to the Balkans and Sinai Peninsula. The Army National Guard
    met the challenge of balancing our federal and state missions. Our
    Soldiers, families and employers deserve credit for a job well done in
    the face of strained resources.
        This Posture Statement presents an opportunity to lay out in detail
    the Army National Guard actions 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 Support the Warfight, Defend the
    Homeland and Transformation for the Future.
        The Army National Guard balances its status as an integral element
    of the United States Army with its readiness to serve state governors
    and the people of our communities. Our Citizen-Soldiers represent
    thousands of communities across America. Our Soldiers bring with them
    real-world experience and provide capabilities to address both domestic
    disasters and foreign conflicts.
        The Army National Guard remains committed to transform into an
    Operational Force that continues to be capable of its dual role to
    support the Global War on Terrorism and the state governors. The Army
    National Guard's commitment to domestic and foreign affairs will remain
    at a consistent pace for the coming years. We are able to keep this
    commitment because of the continued dedication of our Soldiers, support
    from the families and the resources provided by Congress.
                     support the warfight anytime, anywhere
    The Citizen-Soldier: Defending the Nation
        The Army National Guard demonstrates it is a full partner of the
    Total Army Force. The Army National Guard provided ready units in
    support of a variety of overseas missions throughout fiscal year 2004.
        The Army National Guard mobilized and deployed more than 95,000
    Soldiers to war in support of Operation Noble Eagle (America's Homeland
    Defense), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (Iraq). The Army National Guard conducts operations ranging
    from combat to peacekeeping and force protection to national missile
    defense missions. The Army National Guard meets operational
    requirements in conjunction with training activities in 84 countries.
    The Army National Guard balances missions with continued support to
    state and local authorities during natural and manmade disasters,
    Homeland Defense and Homeland Security.
        The Army National Guard fortified its success with a long-term
    leadership role in the Balkans, supporting Peacekeeping Operations in
    Bosnia and Kosovo. Army National Guard units received assignment as
    Multi-National Force Observers in the Sinai Peninsula. The Active
    Component previously supported each of these operations. The Army
    National Guard will conduct these missions in the future.
    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. These competencies include training, equipping Soldiers,
    growing capable leaders and maintaining a relevant and ready land
    power. The Army National Guard 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. This requires the Rapid Fielding
    Initiative to equip our Soldiers with the latest force protection
    items, such as body armor with Small Arms Protective Insert Plates,
    Night Vision Devices and small weapons.
    Intelligence Operations
        Army National Guard Soldiers assigned to Military Intelligence play
    a vital role in the Global War on Terrorism and National Security. The
    Army National Guard deployed these Soldiers worldwide to support
    intelligence operations at the tactical, operational and strategic
    levels. During 2004, Army National Guard Military Intelligence units
    supported combatant commanders deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan,
    Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman,
    Djibouti, Guantanamo Bay and to Continental United States locations.
    Army National Guard linguists and analysts provided capabilities for
    government agencies such as the National Security Agency, Defense
    Intelligence Agency and elements of the State, Treasury and Justice
    Departments. At all levels of operation, Soldiers participate in
    sanctioned activities including imagery intelligence, signals
    intelligence, document exploitation, counter-drug and analysis-based
    intelligence. Our Soldiers engage in intelligence activities
    concurrently with training to improve their readiness and ability to
    remain a key asset in the defense of our nation.
    Information Operations
        The Army National Guard continues to provide Full Spectrum
    Information Operation Teams to support a broad range of Army missions.
    The Army National Guard Information Operations Field Support Teams
    provide tactical planning capabilities at all echelons. Army National
    Guard Brigade Combat Teams are deployed to theater with information
    operation cells that provide planning support to each level.
    Innovative Readiness Training
        The Innovative Readiness Training program highlights the Citizen-
    Soldier's role in support of eligible civilian organizations. By
    combining required wartime training with community support projects,
    Soldiers obtain the training they need and communities receive needed
    assistance in completing various projects. Community benefits usually
    come in the form of construction projects or medical improvements.
        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 missions include:
      --Task Force Alaska leadership of a joint, multi-year engineering
            project to construct a 15-mile road on Annette Island, normally
            accessible only by boat;
      --In Clarksburg, West Virginia, Army National Guard engineers
            continue efforts to expand and improve the Benedum Airport
            infrastructure;
      --Task Force Grizzly and Task Force Douglas improved existing road
            networks in support of United States Border Patrol in
            California and Arizona;
      --Rolling Thunder is a series of Oregon Army and Air National Guard
            projects designed to enhance military skills while adding value
            to local communities. Rolling Thunder provides a positive
            presence in Oregon communities and promotes public awareness of
            the Army National Guard; and
      --The South Carolina Army National Guard instituted the REEFEX
            project. REEFEX utilizes decommissioned Army vehicles to create
            artificial reefs in the Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of New
            England and South Carolina.
    Training the Nation's Warfighter
        The Army National Guard's unique condition of limited training
    time, limited training 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 Army National Guard
    maintain a ready Operational Force.
        The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is the primary weapon system of the
    United States Army Mechanized Infantry and a critical system to the
    United States Army Cavalry. The Advanced Bradley Full Crew Interactive
    Skills Trainer virtual gunnery training system is a low cost,
    deployable training system that attaches directly to the Bradley
    Fighting Vehicle and supports home station training in advance of a
    live fire event.
        The Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer provides training for combat
    convoys under realistic conditions that simulate the streets of Baghdad
    and other areas. This resource trains Soldiers to anticipate ambushes
    and other insurgent actions from all possible directions by allowing
    the crew to observe, maneuver and fire their weapons in a full, 360-
    degree circumference. These systems train mobilizing Soldiers in
    tactics, techniques and procedures for convoy operations within the
    U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility.
        The Engagement Skills Trainer 2000 simulates weapon-training
    events. This trainer provides initial and sustainment marksmanship
    training, static unit collective gunnery tactical training and rapid
    identity friend-or-foe training. Soldiers utilize 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 training.
        The Laser Marksmanship Training System simulates weapons training
    events that lead to live-fire qualifications for individual and crew-
    served weapons. This system is similar to the Engagement Skills Trainer
    2000, but it weighs less, is transportable, uses batteries and requires
    no fixed facilities to maintain. This system allows the Soldier to use
    personal weapons to conduct individual and sustainment marksmanship
    training using Nuclear, Biological and Chemical equipment.
        The Joint Training and Experimentation Program is a California
    National Guard training initiative. This program develops the
    technology that links the Live, Virtual and Constructive training
    environments into an architecture, which permits fully integrated
    exercises at the brigade level and below.
    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 National Guard synchronizes its
    transformation efforts with the Department of the Army. The Army
    National Guard's modern wide-area network provides improved redundancy
    and increased network security. The Army National Guard G-6 will
    continue to support the Joint Warfighter by enhancing collaboration
    among the Total Force and leveraging superior Knowledge Management
    strategies in fiscal year 2006.
              homeland defense: here and abroad for over 368 years
    Prepared and Ready
        The national investment in Army National Guard training and
    readiness programs continues to pay strong dividends. Congressional
    attention and support directly enables the Guard's ability to robustly
    defend the homeland and provide trained and ready units to Combatant
    Commanders waging the War on Terror and engaging enemies abroad.
        The Army and Army National Guard transformation is a process
    critical to meeting the challenges of today and the future. At the same
    time, the Army National Guard advances with proven readiness and
    training programs that are critical to our current successes and
    essential for those in the future.
        The Army National Guard prepares to transform at an unprecedented
    pace while continuing the Warfight. National and state leaders can rest
    assured the Army National Guard remains committed to the
    responsibilities of its dual role. The Army National Guard commits
    itself to continued and immediate support of local civilian authorities
    while maintaining Relevant and Ready Forces in support of the Nation.
    Full-Time Support
        Fighting the Global War on Terrorism highlights the vital role
    Full-Time Support personnel serve 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 Guard members are responsible for organizing,
    administering, instructing, training and recruiting new personnel. They
    maintain supplies, equipment and aircraft. Full-Time Support personnel
    are imperative to the successful transition from peace to war and have
    critical links to the integration of the Army's components. To meet
    readiness requirements, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in
    concert with the Adjutants General, increased Full-Time Support
    authorizations as a priority for the Army National Guard.
        While the Army National Guard made progress in recent years to
    increase Full-Time Support, obstacles remain in obtaining acceptable
    Full-Time Support levels. It is critical that Full-Time Manning
    increase in the near term to a minimum 90 percent of the total
    requirement to help ensure the highest readiness level, C1.
    Training to Protect the Homeland
        The training priority for the Army National Guard is preparation of
    combat-ready Soldiers that limits lengthy post-mobilization periods.
    The requirements for missions at home and abroad direct the training
    emphasis of the Army National Guard in contemporary operating
    environments. As a result, Army National Guard units remain fully
    prepared, equipped, trained and ready to operationally deploy and
    swiftly mobilize to meet regional and territorial responsibilities.
        For a second consecutive year, the Army National Guard met or
    exceeded the Secretary of Defense's Duty Military Occupational Skill
    Qualification training goals. In fiscal year 2004, the Army National
    Guard achieved 83.08 percent qualification status. This specific
    training goal increases to 85 percent in fiscal year 2005. The Army
    National Guard added training schools to meet the needs of our Soldiers
    for operational missions at home and abroad. These efforts resulted in
    7,000 additional Soldiers now meeting deployment standards.
        In an effort to respond to the contemporary training needs of units
    and Soldiers, the Army National Guard plans to establish ``Training for
    Urban Operations'' at our facilities. We currently operate one entire
    suite and two Mobile Military Operation Urban Terrain sites. Additional
    facility construction programmed over the next five years at four
    National Guard Training Centers will better support mobilizations. A
    future construction plan targets four more sites.
    Protecting Those Who Protect America
        The Army National Guard adheres to the Army's new Safety Campaign
    Plan and incorporates it into the Army National Guard's Safety and
    Occupational Health regulation. The Army National Guard will continue
    to emphasize the Defensive Driving Course in the coming years. The Army
    National Guard Safety and Occupational Health Office is a partner with
    adjacent and higher level safety organizations to identify and
    implement successful methods of combating all our safety related
    problems.
    Keeping the Force Strong: Recruiting and Retention
        The Army National Guard ended fiscal year 2004 by achieving 99
    percent of our retention objectives and exceeding attrition goals. This
    accomplishment falls 7,082 Soldiers short of our End Strength goal of
    350,000 Soldiers. To meet this same End Strength goal in fiscal year
    2005, the Army National Guard's enlisted accession mission is 63,000
    Soldiers funded at a 50/50 Non-Prior Service/Prior Service ratio. The
    Active Component End Strength increase, high operational tempo and
    reduced propensity of prior service Soldiers to join the Army National
    Guard prove a challenge to our recruiting mission. The reduction in
    Active Component members transitioning into a reserve capacity requires
    the Army National Guard to increase accession of Non-Prior Service
    candidates. Funding constraints limit the Army National Guard's ability
    to maintain a presence on school campuses to attract Non-Prior Service
    candidates. As a result, we witnessed a drop in recruits from the high
    school and college graduate pool. The Army National Guard currently
    works with the Army Personnel leadership to identify funding
    requirements in the Recruiting Action Plan.
        The Army National Guard implemented retention and attrition
    programs and is developing new initiatives to minimize projected
    attrition impacts of the 12-18 month mobilization cycle. To date,
    recent operations have not significantly affected loss rates of units
    returning from deployment. Our current loss rate of Soldiers
    demobilized through December 2004 is 11.3 percent of the entire
    demobilized Soldier population since 9/11. This loss rate is well below
    our current overall Army National Guard loss rate of 18.8 percent with
    the Army National Guard goal being 18 percent losses. We remain
    cautiously optimistic that developing Army National Guard retention
    programs, initiatives and enhancements based on Unit Post Mobilization
    Survey data will preempt the kind of high loss rates resulting from the
    Operation Desert Storm/Shield era.
        The Army National Guard launched an aggressive new marketing
    campaign, ``American Soldier,'' targeting Non-Prior Service candidates.
    This comprehensive campaign reaches prospective Guardsmen through
    radio, television, college marketing, internet media, event marketing
    and point-of-sale materials, promotional items, print media and mass
    mailings. This marketing tool enables the Army National Guard to
    effectively execute its mission and recruit quality Soldiers.
    Supplemental funding identified as required in our Recruiting Action
    Plan is critical to continue ``American Soldier'' through fiscal year
    2005.
        The Army National Guard is taking several steps to ensure we
    achieve fiscal year 2005 objectives. These objectives include
    introduction of a comprehensive Recruiting and Retention Non-
    commissioned Officer Sustainment Training program with internal Mobile
    Training Teams. Enhancements to the ``YOU CAN'' school programs and
    educational seminars include six new and 24 updated school
    presentations. These programs provide Army National Guard recruiters
    entry into the secondary school markets. We emphasize access to the
    secondary schools at regional and state-level educational seminars and
    work with professional educators to facilitate direct marketing of the
    Army National Guard programs. Initiatives to strengthen Commissioned
    Officer levels in fiscal year 2005 include a dedicated Officer
    Recruiting blitz. This concentrated effort involves a coordinated
    campaign amongst national, regional and state officer recruiting
    personnel. Additional support focused on Army Medical, Chaplain,
    Warrant Officer and Basic Branch recruiting complement our overall
    Officer Recruitment campaign.
        Recruiting and retaining Soldiers for the Army National Guard
    proves to be challenging during wartime. In fiscal year 2005, the Army
    National Guard increased the accession mission from 56,000 to 63,000 to
    compensate for fiscal year 2004 shortfalls. The Army National Guard
    trained 971 new recruiting and retention non-commissioned officers
    through December 2004 and will add 1,400 more in 2005. This addition
    will increase our ability to recover from current End Strength and
    accession shortfalls. The assistance outlined above, coupled with
    successful implementation of key initiatives, is imperative to
    attaining the End Strength mission.
    Environmental Programs
        The Army National Guard continues implementation and full
    utilization of initiatives consistent with the new Army Strategy for
    the Environment and Installation Sustainability. Begun in fiscal year
    2002, the Training Center Sustainment Initiative reduces mission
    impacts through identification and prioritization of environmental
    vulnerabilities. Range sustainment initiatives ensure maximum
    continuous use of Army National Guard training lands for our Soldiers.
    This comprehensive, web-based tool provides sustainability analysis on
    our training lands and valuable analytical decision-making tools for
    Army National Guard leaders. The Training Center Sustainment
    Initiative, in conjunction with Environmental Management Systems
    implementation and continued Geographical Information Systems
    integration, greatly supports active stewardship of the environment.

      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 Security. In the initial
    defensive operations phase, the Army National Guard will play a major
    role in this mission as the force provider for the Ground-based Missile
    Defense system. We requested a fiscal year 2005 funding increase in the
    Active Guard Reserve manpower authorization in the President's Budget
    Request to support this new role. The Ballistic Missile Defense program
    is dynamic--undergoing constant refinement and often late-breaking
    changes and decisions. The Army National Guard, as the force provider,
    may require last-minute changes in Active Guard Reserve manpower
    authorizations and related funding for missile defense decisions.
    Timely congressional support of these requests is imperative for the
    Army National Guard to provide the necessary manpower resources to the
    vital Homeland Defense mission. Soldiers serve in two statuses: (1)
    Title 32 Active Guard Reserve status performing duty consistent with
    the core functions by 10 USC 1019d)(6): organizing, administering,
    recruiting, instructing or training other members of the reserve
    components; (2) Title 10 Active Guard Reserve status performing the
    Federal Ground-based Missile Defense operational mission duties (for
    the duration of those duties). To support these manpower resources,
    Soldiers performing operational missions function in Title 10 status.
    Soldiers performing non-operational missions remain in Title 32 status.
    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
    National Guard to operate heavy equipment at a higher operational rate
    while reducing the overall costs for these systems.

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

         Equipment Modernization Shortfalls in the Army National Guard
        High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles
        Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios
        UH-60 Helicopter
        Night Vision Devices
        Small Arms

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

        The Army National Guard currently retains 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 National Guard and other Army elements continue consolidation of
    maintenance systems. This initiative enhances the maintenance system
    and improves efficiency. Army maintenance personnel effectively
    diagnose and maintain equipment by reducing maintenance tasks to two
    levels instead of four.
    Personnel Transformation
        Critical ``paperless'' Personnel Transformation innovations are
    underway within the Army National Guard. Our web-based Personnel
    Electronic Records Management System utilizes digital imagery to store
    and retrieve personnel records. This state-of-the-art technology
    provides seamless records management capability throughout the Total
    Army. The system enhances both mobilization and personnel readiness.
    With over 320,000 Soldiers deployed in over 120 countries, the
    necessity for a Total Army Records Management solution is paramount.
    Aviation Transformation and Modernization
        The Army National Guard's aviation transformation supports efforts
    to transform for the future. Aviation transformation and modernization
    increases our ability to support a joint warfight while enhancing our
    responsiveness for Homeland Defense. We are reconfiguring our aviation
    units into modularized units of action and units of employment to align
    with Army plans. Reduction of the UH-1 Huey fleet to 100 aircraft
    should occur by the end of 1st Quarter fiscal year 2005. We will
    complete aircraft reallocations within the National Guard system, turn
    in aircraft legacy systems and transfer remaining aircraft from active
    component units.
        The Army National Guard provides almost half of the Army's aviation
    structure. The rate of modernization, planned quantities of most
    aircraft and current funding levels influence the ability to maintain
    combat-ready status. Aging and obsolete rotary wing assets average over
    twenty years of service life. Fixed wing assets also show signs of age.
    The Army National Guard started removing Utility C-26 aircraft from
    service and retiring utility C-12 aircraft. C-23 cargo aircraft offer
    marginal capabilities for wartime cargo movement requirements. Current
    plans provide no alternative replacement for our fixed wing assets.
        The active Army cascaded significant quantities of UH-60 Blackhawk,
    CH-47 Chinook and AH-64 Apache aircraft to the Army National Guard.
    This procurement still leaves us permanently short of adequate combat
    rotary wing systems. The Army National Guard anticipates receiving only
    174 of the required 220 AH-64 Apaches, 131 of the required 159 CH-47
    Chinooks and 662 of the required 710 UH-60 Blackhawks. Acquisition of
    AH-64 Apaches will consist of only 60 of the modernized AH-64D
    ``Longbow'' model.
        Modernized aircraft require modern facilities to support them.
    Upgraded and updated facilities ensure our ability to logistically
    support modernized systems once in place. Fielding equipment (tool set,
    tool kits, test equipment and parts) necessary to support new aircraft
    failed to keep pace with transformation. We fund the majority of
    support items by diverting funds from other Army National Guard
    programs. Training demands for transitioning units cause further stress
    for already overburdened training sites. While the Army National Guard
    meets these challenges, eventually we will exceed our capacity to
    respond and adapt. We need to obtain necessary logistical support and
    infrastructure to sustain our aviation structure in accordance with
    Army readiness standards. Without increased funding, the Army National
    Guard Aviation Force risks lower readiness rates, reduced capability
    and obsolescence.
    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 in accordance with transformation needs for
    Future Force ranges and maneuver areas that effectively meet evolving
    warfighting requirements. Ranges and training land provide live fire
    experience. 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 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
    the Distributed Learning construct. Distributed Learning improves unit
    and Soldier readiness through 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 for Soldiers and units. Current
    Distributed Learning addresses training priorities such as Duty
    Military Occupational Skill Qualification reclassification and other
    professional military and functional training.
        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 has proven 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.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Daniel James, III

                           MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR

        This has been another exceptional year for the Air National Guard.
    Despite our serious obligations and missions in prosecuting the Global
    War on Terrorism, our members remained at the forefront of Homeland
    Defense abroad and at home. During fiscal year 2004, Air National Guard
    crews flew well over 50 percent of the fighter, tanker and airlift
    sorties for Operation Noble Eagle while postured for Air Sovereignty
    Alert at 16 of 17 sites; provided almost one-third of the fighter
    sorties in Operation Enduring Freedom; and provided over one-third of
    the fighter and tanker sorties for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Air
    National Guard crews also supported 75 percent of the tanker sorties
    and over 60 percent of the airlift sorties to other theaters. In
    addition, Air National Guard Expeditionary Combat Support capabilities
    support operations and exercises around the world. More than two-thirds
    of the Air National Guard force engaged in worldwide operations since
    9/11.
        Air National Guard members could not participate at these levels
    without continued support from Congress and the American people.
    Congress has worked hard to provide the support and the necessary
    resources to take care of the troops and their families, allowing the
    troops to focus on the mission. Citizen-Airmen answer the call as they
    always have and are receiving the tools to accomplish these demanding,
    dynamic missions at home and abroad. Additionally, our members'
    employers continue to step up to the plate by providing financial and
    employment security that exceeds the standards. This, too, helps our
    people focus on the mission.
        The Air National Guard will continue to perform these homeland
    defense and expeditionary missions even as our organization transforms
    to meet future requirements. Through VANGUARD, the Air National Guard's
    strategy to remain relevant, we will continue to work with Air Force
    leadership to achieve the right mix of forces across the full spectrum
    of operations. We will continue to develop organizations that create
    synergistic effects for the resources involved by adhering to the core
    values associated with unit-equipped missions, by integrating where it
    is smart or by creating other unique organizational structures. We will
    seek new missions, such as the F/A-22, Predator, missions in space and
    information operations, while modernizing systems that will increase
    mission effectiveness. We will recruit and retain the best the nation
    has to offer while developing our people into Total Force leaders. Our
    success will require the focused effort of all stakeholders to ensure
    the necessary capabilities will be available for Hometown America while
    leveraging the community experience of our members. While we face these
    challenges together, community, state and national leaders can be sure
    the Air National Guard will remain Ready, Reliable, Relevant . . .
    Needed now and in the future!

                     SUPPORT THE WARFIGHT ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

    Total Force Partner in the Expeditionary Air and Space Force
        The Air National Guard has been and will continue integrating into
    the Air and Space Expeditionary Force employment concept. Since its
    inception, Air National Guard men and women in aviation and support
    packages routinely rotated to support exercises and real-world
    operations around the globe. As the Air Force adjusts this concept to
    meet current and future requirements, the Air National Guard adjusts as
    well to maintain Citizen-Airmen presence globally. Air National Guard
    capabilities are often singularly sought because of our experience and
    unique capabilities. Two such capabilities are the Theater Airborne
    Reconnaissance System and the ability to employ the 500-pound Joint
    Direct Air Munitions.
        Across the full spectrum of operations, Air National Guard men and
    women continue to volunteer for duty in record numbers. The Volunteer
    is a key attribute continuously leveraged to supply needed capabilities
    while giving commanders the ability to efficiently and effectively
    manage the most precious resource: People. Volunteerism combined with
    high experience levels and unique skills mean an outstanding support
    for the war fight.
    Network Centric Warfare and the Air National Guard
        The Air Force's vision of Network Centric Warfare is a fully
    integrated digital system, which delivers seamless, survivable, instant
    capability to execute the Joint Force Commander's desired effects. This
    system provides Global Network Connectivity, network enabled weapons
    platforms, fused intelligence capability, real-time situational
    awareness and command and control. A dramatic transformation must occur
    in the Air Force and the Air National Guard in order to make the vision
    of this integrated digital system a reality.
        With this transformation initiative, our focus shifts from
    information technology to the management of information. Information
    technology personnel will no longer merely manage circuits, computers
    and the infrastructure, but also manage the movement of information.
    Information will be stored centrally, with authoritative ownership, in
    a common format. This will permit information to be accessed by anyone,
    across functional domains, in real-time. Governance of the information
    structure will be elevated to the Air Force global level, with tiered
    responsibilities down to the client device. Systems and their
    infrastructures will utilize standardized components and
    configurations. Applications, systems and content will be web-enabled,
    stored in the Global Combat Support System and accessed through the Air
    Force portal from anywhere, at any time.
        Transformation in the Information Technology domain is expensive.
    Information management initiatives affect every mission and member in
    the Air National Guard. Legacy systems must be retired; Information
    Technology infrastructure must be dramatically reduced and centralized.
    New systems and their infrastructures must be implemented even as
    existing systems continue to be used.
        These initiatives will reduce strategic decision cycles to minutes
    and tactical decision cycles to milliseconds. Transformation in the
    Information Technology domain is expensive, but participation in
    NetCentric Warfare brings continued relevance to the Air National Guard
    by ensuring that our weapon systems, command and control processes and
    information are fully integrated with the Air Force. We must remain
    linked with the Air Force's transformation efforts in order to remain
    responsive to combatant commanders and continue to be a responsive,
    enabled and reliable partner in the Total Force. Continued fiscal
    support in the Information Technology arena must be sustained.
    Engineering Support to the Warfighter
        The Air National Guard civil engineering structure is based on a
    joint military-state cooperative agreement for the day-to-day operation
    of installations. This lean and efficient structure allows our
    organization to support the many missions of the National Guard while
    concentrating on support to the wider Air Force engineering mission.
    The Air National Guard contributes roughly 30 percent of the total Air
    Force engineering capability and has been involved in front line
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recent gains in operations and
    maintenance funding for mobility equipment allowed engineering teams to
    outfit for their prominent role in the current War on Terrorism.
    Important gains were made in acquiring equipment resources for more
    specialized items like chemical detectors and RED HORSE equipment. This
    is one area where an increased capability will ensure mission
    effectiveness.
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems and Support:
            Holding the High Ground
        The Air National Guard's Intelligence, Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance personnel and systems play a vital role in the defense
    of our nation. Air National Guardsmen and women are essential to Air
    Force tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination missions to
    support Global Hawk, Predator and U-2 collection missions in every
    combat theater today. Through Eagle Vision, a deployable commercial
    imagery downlink and exploitation system, the Air Force transformation
    keeps the Air National Guard a responsive, enabled and reliable part of
    the total force responding to the combatant commanders' requirements.
        The Air National Guard provides valuable support to aircrew mission
    planning and targeting, as well as imagery support for counter-
    terrorism and natural disasters.
        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 emerged as a major impact
    capability in the Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom theaters as the need for timely imagery became vital to the
    ground battles there. The presence of the Air National Guard Theater
    Airborne Reconnaissance System prompted Air Force leadership to
    conclude that manned tactical reconnaissance is still required in
    today's joint combat operations and will remain so into the near
    future. Consequently, Air National Guard is bolstering the airborne
    reconnaissance capability to include a Synthetic Aperture Radar, a
    streaming datalink and, eventually, a multi-spectral sensor to provide
    battle managers with real-time, allweather, 24-hour ``kill-chain''
    support.
        SENIOR SCOUT remains the primary signal collection asset to support
    the nation's war on drugs and the Global War on Terrorism within the
    southern hemisphere. The expanding, ever-changing world of
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance promises to continue
    challenging the Air National Guard to remain a relevant part of the
    success of this vital mission for the Total Force.
              homeland defense: here and abroad for over 368 years
    Air Sovereignty Alert
        Since September 11, 2001, thousands of Air National Guard personnel
    have provided complete air sovereignty across the United States.
    Maximizing the traditional basing locations, capitalizing on high
    experience levels and leveraging a long professional history in Air
    Defense operations, the Air National Guard continues to serve as the
    backbone of this vital mission for the near future. A major improvement
    to the alert force manning posture is the current transition to a more
    ``steady state'' force from the traditional mobilized force. In
    addition, the national command and control infrastructure, to include
    datalink connectivity, is undergoing a major upgrade to digitize air
    sovereignty information, allowing real-time assessments for the
    national-level decision-makers. The Joint Air Operations Center that
    enhances the protection of the Nation's Capital is one example of new
    hardware and software sets available to streamline alert operations and
    to reduce reaction and decision-making times to a fraction of the
    former capability. As we move toward the fiscal year 2006 Program
    Objective, the National Guard will continue toward a more modernized
    alert force and successfully execute this vital Homeland Defense
    mission.
    Facilities Supporting Homeland Defense
        Air National Guard Civil Engineering infrastructure is available at
    87 locations across the United States. This level of unit distribution
    supports the Air National Guard missions by providing a broad base for
    recruiting and retention and enhancing the overall need for a response
    capability in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
    Civil support teams are a highly visible response capability within
    each state, but the disaster response capabilities of the Air National
    Guard civil engineering units located within each state are significant
    as well. Civil Engineering capabilities provide fully equipped fire
    departments staffed with personnel trained in hazardous material
    response, disaster preparedness specialists equipped with chemical and
    biological detection equipment and the full range of craftsmen and
    equipment operators that can be brought to bear for any situation in a
    matter of hours. Continued funding support will further strengthen this
    capability by providing an essential equipment package for emergency
    response--a capability already on hand at active duty bases but not yet
    deployed to Air National Guard locations. The post-September 11
    environment placed new requirements on the facilities program as well.
    Our efforts to implement appropriate anti-terrorism and force
    protection features are progressing, but there is much work ahead.
    Plans focus future efforts on improving base entry gates, perimeter
    security and internal circulation patterns and parking. These
    improvements will create a safer platform for execution of the Air
    National Guard's missions.
    Medical Service Transformation--Dual Mission Concepts Supporting the
            Warfight and Homeland Defense
        The Expeditionary Medical Support system provides 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 warfight,
    the Air and Space Expeditionary Force missions and Homeland Defense
    emergency response capabilities to the states and the Air National
    Guard Wings. ONE SYSTEM--TWO MISSIONS!
        The U.S. Central Command 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 is currently utilized in Iraq to provide medical
    support to the combatant commanders and all components. The modular
    ``building block'' capability of the system provides an advanced
    technology and an essential, tailored medical capability in a small,
    forward footprint expandable to meet situational needs.
        The National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
    High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Packages were mission-
    tasked to deploy, on order, to a chemical, biological, radiological,
    nuclear or high-yield explosives incident to support both Department of
    Defense installations and civil authorities in conducting consequence
    management operations. The time of response for this capability is
    between six and 72 hours. This timeframe is the perceived gap between
    local and federal response times. This package will serve as a medical
    reach back capability for the National Guard, will ultimately ensure a
    seamless medical response between the local-state-federal agencies and
    will provide support to the Civil Support Teams.
        To date, Small Portable Expeditionary Aeromedical Rapid Response
    packages, which comprise the initial components of the Expeditionary
    Medical Support packages, are available in twelve states. Numerous
    state emergency plans cite emergency departments, operating rooms and
    medical bed expansion as serious constraints or shortfalls in
    effectively managing an incident. Expeditionary Medical Support systems
    will most definitely be able to provide medical triage and treatment
    until civilian sources are capable of absorbing patients into the
    civilian healthcare system. Future plans include at least one
    Expeditionary Medical Support system capability in each Federal
    Emergency Management Agency region and to complete the packages and
    provide training for the medical counter-chemical, biological,
    radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives mission at each Air
    National Guard unit in each state not collocated with an active duty or
    reserve unit.
        The Air National Guard will continue to transform medical
    capabilities to support the warfight, support homeland defense and meet
    both federal and state requirements. This will be accomplished through
    the efficient, effective, and economical use of resources by developing
    dual tasked missions. ONE SYSTEM--TWO MISSIONS!

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

        Clearly a full partner across the spectrum of operations and in
    every theater, the Air National Guard will strive to maintain its
    proportionality across the major weapons systems as it transforms
    through the VANGUARD strategy. With experience levels normally higher
    than our active duty counterparts--especially in the pilot and
    maintenance communities--it is only natural that this experience be
    leveraged for future missions. The integration of the 192nd Fighter
    Wing, Virginia Air National Guard, with the active component's 1st
    Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, VA, to fly the F/A-22 Raptor; the stand-up
    of the first integrated Predator unit in which the California and
    Nevada Air National Guard are members; and the activation of a
    ``Community Based'' F-16 unit with the Vermont Air National Guard are a
    few of our current initiatives. The Nebraska Air National Guard is
    continuing to use its unique capabilities to find new ways to support
    the 55 Wing at Offutt AFB, NE, Recent initiatives by the Air Force
    include a partnered Texas and Arizona Air National Guard Predator unit
    and a Distributive Ground Station with the New York Air National Guard.
    These initiatives show commitment by the current Air Force and National
    Guard Bureau leadership to transform air and space capabilities as a
    Total Force; however, Air National Guard leadership will use required
    resources to ensure the right mix of forces in future missions. It is
    also imperative that developing mission requirements be identified so
    units can more easily transfer from one mission to the next.
        The Air National Guard's 88 flying locations provide a broad
    spectrum of support to governors and the Nation as a whole. Mission
    areas such as Civil Engineering, Security Police, Medical and Civil
    Support Teams provide critical links from National Command Authority
    down to first responders in our local communities. The synergies that
    exist due to the Air National Guard Units locations on Civilian
    Airports strengthen ties to both National and state leadership that
    reinforce the homeland defense mission in ways not found on Active Duty
    installations. Efforts are underway to put appropriate anti-terrorism
    and force protection measures in place at all 88 flying locations, but
    much work and resources are required to complete the task. These and
    future improvements will create unique civilian and military
    capabilities in the homeland defense mission that cost the country very
    little, yet afford protections of vital transportation modes that are
    the economic engine of the United States.
        Continued transformation is needed in the joint battle arena to
    ensure full connectivity among the joint and coalition forces. Lessons
    learned from recent operations are flowing into the planning and
    modernization efforts across the Air Force and the Air National Guard.
    A current example of this effort to transform into a seamless joint
    force is the use of the Enhanced Radio Location Reporting System-based
    networks in ground operations. A U.S. Army developed tactical internet
    system, the network information provides positive location of all
    friendly forces, a particularly valuable piece of information in urban
    air operations.
    Modernizing for the Future
        The Air National Guard modernization program is a capabilities-
    based effort to keep the forces in the field fully mission capable. As
    a framework for prioritization, the modernization program is segmented
    into three periods: 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. In the short-term, the Air National Guard
    Modernization Program focuses on the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.
    Theaters of operation range from domestic efforts, such as fire
    fighting, to full partners overseas in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
    Operation Enduring Freedom. The modern battlefield demands that Air
    National Guard weapons systems and crews have identical or equivalent
    capabilities as joint and coalition forces. The results of the
    modernization program are graphically demonstrated in both Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The Block 25/30/32 F-16s,
    with their laser designator LITENING II targeting pods, and the
    Enhanced Position Reporting System/Situation Awareness Data Links are
    the air weapons system of choice for the combatant commanders in both
    theaters, especially when performing very demanding close air support
    missions.
        Air National Guard weapons systems are crucial now and will
    continue to be vital as the Air National Guard transitions to new
    missions. The timeless warrior for ground forces, the A-10 requires an
    upgraded digitized cockpit, precision targeting pods, a tactical
    datalink, upgraded engines and a robust data processing capability to
    allow the accurate delivery of current and future weapons.
        During 2004, Air Guard F-16s provided crucial combat capabilities
    in Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
    Enduring Freedom. The current modernization program includes the
    Commercial Central Interface Unit, Color Multifunctional Displays, the
    Heads-up Display Advanced Electrical Unit, the Radar Modernized
    Programmable Signal Processor, the AN/ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver
    Antenna Optimization, Situational Awareness Data Link upgrade and the
    Electronic Attack upgrade. Fiscal year 2005 funding for the 40 Advanced
    Identify Friend or Foe upgrade kits was secured along with funding for
    six F100-PW-229 engines for Block 42 aircraft combat capability
    enhancements.
        The Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System became a key capability
    for the theater commanders after the recent deployment of the Air
    National Guard F-16s with this capability. The installation of the
    Forward Looking Infrared system, an essential capability during combat
    rescue operations, on the HC-130 is complete. The HC-130 is also being
    equipped with the Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measure system that
    will increase 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 guns and replaced personal equipment for the pararescue jumpers
    with state-of-the-art weapons and technologies. The initiation of the
    Personnel Recovery Vehicle program to take the place of the HH-60
    replacement program will further slow modernization efforts.
        The Operational Support Aircraft Modernization Program leased two
    C-40s, the military version of the 737 Boeing Business Jets. These have
    become the aircraft of choice for the U.S. Congress and civilian and
    military leaders. The Air National Guard provides crucial first class
    support for the active duty Air Force by providing these aircraft to
    the airlift pool.
        Training the Air National Guard air and ground crews remains a top
    priority. This is evidenced by the Air National Guard investment in the
    Distributed Mission Operations infrastructure and facilities. The A-10,
    F-16, F-15 and E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
    have all attained various levels of service and provide valuable,
    theater-level warfare training. The continued development of the
    Distributed Training Operations Center in Des Moines, Iowa, makes it
    the hub of Distributed Mission Operations across the Air Force.
        The E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System was
    deployed before the start of combat operations in support of Operation
    Iraqi Freedom, and remains in-theater as a constant presence and
    critical warfighting capability. The operators developed new techniques
    to fuse intelligence with other resources and sensors. When combined
    with a robust theater datalink network, Joint STARS becomes an
    especially formidable battlefield asset. Several key upgrades were
    highlighted by recent deployment and combat operations: re-engining to
    enhance reliability, maintainability and operational availability, in
    addition to installation of the Traffic Alert Collision Avoidance
    System to comply with Global Air Traffic Management standards.
        To retain critical tactical airlift capability, the Air National
    Guard is modernizing the C-130 fleet by installing the multi-command
    Avionics Modernization Program, acquiring the AN/APN-241 Low Power
    Color Radar, installing the Night Vision Imaging System and continuing
    the development of Scathe View. 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 the final certification of the Airborne Fire
    Fighting System. Additionally, the Air National Guard continues to
    field new C-130J aircraft to replace the aging C-130E fleet.
        The KC-135 weapons system installed the cockpit upgrade and
    continued the R-model upgrades. Keeping the aging fleet modernized
    challenges the Air National Guard as the refueling operations evolve to
    meet the next mission.
        The Air National Guard Modernization Program is essential to
    fielding a relevant combat capability, ensuring the dominance of
    American air power for the next 15 to 20 years. An open and honest
    dialogue from the warfighter through Congress will maximize this
    investment of precious tax dollars. The modernization program is a
    process, not a goal. Recent combat successes validate that process and
    serve as a model for future transformation of the United States Air
    Force.
    Facilities Supporting Transformation
        As the Air National Guard continues with transformational
    initiatives, the facilities program keeps pace. Drastically improved
    funding levels for both maintenance and repair and minor construction
    allow us to focus on both new mission infrastructures, like the
    conversion to C-5's at Martinsburg, WV, and Memphis, TN, as well as
    support improvements to existing facilities. As Air Force and Air
    National Guard transformation initiatives progress, there will be a
    continuing drain on the construction program to support these new
    missions. Although funding is currently secured to implement plans,
    continued support is vital so existing infrastructure and facilities
    are not neglected.
    Recruiting, Retaining and Developing the Right People With the Right
            Skills for Today and Tomorrow
        Air National Guard Recruiting and Retention programs play a vital
    role in supporting our Homeland Defense mission and our successful
    transformation to the future, and they are the driving factor as to how
    well we support the warfighter. The Air National Guard has been very
    successful in the past by recruiting quality members and retaining them
    by taking care of their needs. It is critical for us to access the
    right people and retain current members as we transform our force and
    transition to different missions.
        Provisions of the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act enhance
    recruiting and retention for the Reserve Components. Though provisions
    of the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act provide enhanced
    authority for bonus programs, the Air National Guard budget does not
    yet have the wherewithal to adequately fund these programs. Our ability
    to achieve recruiting and retention goals through fiscal year 2006 will
    undoubtedly be a key factor in how well we assume new missions and
    support Homeland Defense for the Nation. Continued support will
    establish a strong baseline from which to achieve future goals.
    Diversity
        One aspect of the Force Development construct is ensuring
    implementation of the Air National Guard's national diversity strategy.
    This approach increases mission readiness in the organization by
    focusing on workforce diversity that assures fair and equitable
    participation for all. The Air National Guard developed a formal
    mentoring initiative that is ready for a nationwide rollout. This
    program will be a key component in the professional development of Air
    National Guard members with a keen focus on leadership. In today's
    unpredictable world, the Air National Guard builds on its diversity for
    a broader variation of career paths to include experience, education
    and training. Our nation is multi-cultured, and the Air National Guard
    strives to reflect that in our units.
    Personnel Force Development
        The Air National Guard partners with the Air Force in multiple
    Total Force transformation initiatives. These initiatives are tied with
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense's new paradigm--Continuum of
    Service--and will require simplified processes and rules. Continuum of
    Service is a transformation for personnel management designed to remove
    legislative and policy barriers to the seamless transition of our
    members to and from the various military statuses in order to
    facilitate the way our members are employed in the full range of
    operational worldwide missions. A more integrated approach to military
    personnel management is imperative to face the emerging threats of the
    21st century.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Major General Paul J. Sullivan

                              JOINT STAFF OVERVIEW

        In 2004, we reported on the many changes in the areas of
    Transformation, Jointness and Homeland Defense within the National
    Guard. These initiatives transformed the way we do business today and
    bring us fully in line with the Goldwater-Nichols era of jointness. We
    made significant progress in transforming into an organization that is
    doctrinally and functionally aligned like the Joint Staff of the
    Department of Defense.
        A parallel transformation to a joint headquarters continues in the
    states as well. In 2004, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
    approved provisional operation of the Joint Force Headquarters in the
    50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories and the
    District of Columbia. A draft Joint Table of Distribution to make each
    a recognized joint activity was submitted to the Joint Staff in
    September 2004.
        We started the implementation of the Joint CONUS Communications
    Support Environment. It provides a common, secure means through which
    the Joint Force Headquarters State, U.S. Northern Command, U.S.
    Strategic Command and U.S. Pacific Command can coordinate their
    response to any domestic emergency. We continue to address emerging
    requirements with the combatant commanders as they develop. And we
    continue to work with the Adjutants General to leverage National Guard
    force capabilities through initiatives such as the regional Chemical,
    Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosive Force
    Packages and the reaction forces at the state level.
        These transformation initiatives capitalize on the unique nature of
    the National Guard--there is no other active or reserve component
    positioned and experienced to work in a joint interagency and
    intergovernmental environment through a single command authority
    (governor through the Adjutant General). In the Global War on
    Terrorism, the ability to work in a joint, combined interagency and
    intergovernmental environment is more important than ever.
        Our goal is to achieve full operating capability for our Joint
    National Guard Bureau and Joint Force Headquarters State by September
    2006. Improving the Department of Defense's access to National Guard
    capabilities is our principal focus. Our transformation will ensure
    that the Guard remains ready, reliable, essential and accessible!

                     SUPPORT THE WARFIGHT ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

    State Partnership Program
        The National Guard State Partnership Program links states with a
    foreign nation partner to improve bilateral relations with the United
    States. The program's goals reflect an evolving international affairs
    mission for the National Guard. Specifically, it promotes regional
    stability and civil-military relationships in support of U.S. policy
    objectives, and at this moment it is helping to develop dependable
    collaborative partners for U.S.-led coalition operations in support of
    the Secretary of Defense's concept of global engagement.
        The program supports the combatant commanders in that cooperative
    security is achieved, and just as importantly, the National Guard
    personnel gain invaluable experience interfacing with people of diverse
    cultures. The state partners actively participate in a host of
    engagement activities ranging from bilateral familiarization and
    training events to exercises, fellowship-style internships and civic
    leader visits. The partner countries benefit from exposure to the
    concept of military support to civil authority as well as to a cost-
    effective reserve component model.
        Since the last Posture Statement, the State Partnership Program has
    held more than 325 events between the partners and added six new
    partnerships--Florida-Guyana, Virginia-Tajikistan, Colorado-Jordan,
    Delaware-Trinidad & Tobago, North Dakota-Ghana and Wyoming-Tunisia. And
    because of the success of the program, the countries of the Bahamas,
    Serbia and Montenegro have also requested partnerships.
        The National Guard, with its ability to develop long-term
    relationships with people from other countries as well as develop
    contacts in both civil and military realms, is better positioned than
    the active components to enhance regional stability and promote civil-
    military relationships.
        In fiscal year 2006 and beyond, we expect to take the program to
    the next level of security cooperation by working with geographic
    combatant commanders. We look for increased interaction at the action
    officer and troop level. The partner countries are eager for more
    hands-on (how to) engagement events. The National Guard will step up
    and accomplish these new objectives.
    National Guard Family Programs
        Since 9/11, National Guard members have been deployed in greater
    numbers and in more locations than at any time since World War II. The
    role and support of the family has been and continues to be critical to
    mission success. The National Guard Family Program has developed an
    extensive communications and support infrastructure to assist families
    during all phases of the mobilization and deployment process. There are
    more than 400 National Guard Family Assistance Centers located
    throughout the 50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S.
    Territories and the District of Columbia. These centers provide
    information, referral and assistance for anything that families
    experience during a deployment. Most importantly, these services are
    available to any military family member from any branch or component of
    the Armed Forces. National Guard Online Community, which is comprised
    of the public website, www.guardfamily.org, as well as an internal
    Knowledge Management site and computer-based training modules to assist
    families and Family Program staff, supports the Family Assistance
    Centers.
        If family members are not prepared for deployments, a service
    member's readiness, morale and ultimately retention will be affected.
    The Family Program office provides support to program coordinators
    through information-sharing, training, volunteer management, workshops,
    newsletters, family events and youth development programs among other
    services. Since last year, the National Guard Family Program has
    initiated its Guard Family Team Building Program, which trains and
    educates families on National Guard missions and expectations,
    readiness responsibilities and systems to support more self-reliant,
    independent and self-sufficient lifestyles for all Guard families.
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
        The National Defense Strategy requires that the National Guard and
    Reserve be full partners in the Total Force. Our National Guard and
    Reserve members will spend more time away from the workplace defending
    the nation and training to maintain mission readiness. Employers are
    inextricably linked to a strong national defense.
        A nationwide network of local Employer Support volunteers is
    organized in Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (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 4,500 volunteers serve on local
    ESGR Committees. With resources and support provided by the National
    ESGR Committee and the National Guard Bureau, the 54 ESGR state
    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
    recognition of the importance of Employer Support to the retention of
    quality men and women in the National Guard and Reserve and the
    critical contributions of the ESGR state committees, the National Guard
    Bureau provides full-time assistance and liaison support to the Joint
    Forces Headquarters and the 54 ESGR state committees.
        The success of the nation's defense depends on the availability of
    the highly trained members of the Total Force. The basic mission of
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve is to gain and maintain
    support from all public and private employers for the men and women of
    the National Guard and Reserve, as defined by a demonstrated employer
    commitment to employee military service. The National Guard Bureau is
    committed to the additional mission of Employment Support. In today's
    environment, there is a strong need to provide 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 reintegrated 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
    29 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.
        Serving as a national model since 1993, the 24 states and the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that offer the program graduated over
    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
        In 1989, the U.S. Congress authorized the National Guard to perform
    drug interdiction and counterdrug activities under Section 112, USC
    Title 32. For more than 15 years, this program has built great
    credibility with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies through consistent
    and reliable support of counterdrug operations. That support has
    complemented America's homeland security through a visible deterrent to
    potential threats. The primary mission of the counterdrug program is to
    support law enforcement operations aimed at the importation, production
    and distribution of illegal drugs and, secondly, to support community-
    based drug demand reduction programs, which touched nearly 2.5 million
    people in 2004.
        In fiscal year 2004 (October 1, 2003-September 30, 2004) the
    National Guard supported efforts that led to 61,029 arrests and
    assisted law enforcement in seizing the following:

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

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cocaine..................................  102,382 pounds
    Crack Cocaine............................  7,162 pounds
    Marijuana eradicated.....................  1,878,108 plants
    Marijuana (processed)....................  842,509 pounds
    Methamphetamines.........................  10,759 pounds
    Heroin...................................  1,389 pounds
    Ecstasy..................................  411,520 pills
    Other/Designer Drugs.....................  14,870,793 pills
    Weapons..................................  8,359
    Vehicles.................................  15,102
    Currency.................................  $216,000,270
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are six general counterdrug mission categories: program
    management; technical support; general support; counterdrug related
    training; reconnaissance and observation; and drug demand reduction
    support. In 2004, approximately 2,372 National Guard personnel in a
    Title 32 status provided counterdrug support, in addition to preparing
    for their wartime mission through required training.
        Due to the tremendous effectiveness of National Guard training
    programs and the growing need for specialized training, the National
    Guard also operates five congressionally authorized counterdrug
    training academies to provide training to both law enforcement and
    community-based officials. These no-cost school programs are open to
    both civilian and military personnel and offer courses in both supply
    interdiction and demand reduction training.
        The National Guard Counterdrug Program is an integral part of the
    synchronized cooperation between and among the Department of Defense
    and federal, state and local agencies across the full spectrum of
    homeland defense operations. With the annual authorization and
    appropriation by the Congress and the support of the Secretary of
    Defense, the governors' annual counterdrug state plans will become the
    framework for domestic operations. Through these operations, National
    Guard personnel assist nearly 5,000 law enforcement agencies at home
    each year. As we continue our support and engagement with the Global
    War on Terrorism, the National Guard Counterdrug Program provides
    critical complementary support to the combatant commanders in Northern
    and Southern Commands. By leveraging our unique military capabilities,
    national resources and community focus, we can play a central role in
    shaping our nation's response to drugs and associated transnational
    security threats.

              HOMELAND DEFENSE: HERE AND ABROAD FOR OVER 368 YEARS

    National Guard Reaction Force
        The National Guard has over 368 years of experience 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
    respond to threats against the critical infrastructure within their
    borders, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau asked the Adjutants
    General to identify and develop a Quick Reaction Force-type capability.
    The goal is to provide a trained and ready National Guard force to the
    governor of each state or territory capable of responding in support of
    local, state and, when required, Department of Defense requests. The
    National Guard Bureau works with the states and territories to identify
    current response capabilities, as well as with U.S. Northern and U.S.
    Pacific commands to ensure that National Guard capabilities are
    understood and incorporated into their response plans. We have also
    begun to identify additional requirements for force protection and
    interoperability with civilian emergency responders. The National Guard
    Reaction Force is not a new capability or concept. What is new is the
    concept of standardized training and mission capabilities shared by the
    50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories and the
    District of Columbia, thereby enhancing those capabilities.
    Full Spectrum Integrated Vulnerability Assessment
        The Full Spectrum Integrated Vulnerability Assessment program is
    another National Guard Homeland Defense initiative. Teams of National
    Guard Soldiers or Airmen are trained to conduct vulnerability
    assessments of critical infrastructure in order to prepare and plan
    emergency mission response in the case of a terrorist attack or natural
    disaster. This program is designed to execute the necessary pre-
    planning to educate civilian agencies on basic force protection and
    emergency response; develop relationships between emergency responders,
    owners of critical infrastructure and National Guard planners in the
    states; and deploy traditional National Guard forces in a timely
    fashion to protect that critical infrastructure. In developing this
    concept, the National Guard Bureau worked with the Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense to establish
    policies and standards. During 2004, the Guard Bureau trained six teams
    to conduct vulnerability assessments. With this new initiative, the
    National Guard continues its time-honored tradition of preparedness to
    respond at a moment's notice in defense of America.
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
        The National Guard continued to strengthen its ability to respond
    to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive
    events by adding twelve new Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
    Teams during 2004. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the existing
    32 certified Civil Support Teams have been fully engaged in planning,
    training and operations in support of local and state emergency
    responders. These full-time teams were designed to provide specialized
    expertise and technical assistance to the incident commander by
    identifying chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substances;
    assessing the situation; advising the incident commander on potential
    courses of action; and assisting the response team with innovative
    technology and expertise.
        Operationally, these teams are under the command and control of the
    governors through the respective Adjutant General in a USC Title 32
    status. The National Guard Bureau provides logistical support,
    standardized operational procedures and operational coordination to
    facilitate the employment of the teams and to ensure supporting
    capability for states currently without a full-time Civil Support Team.
        During fiscal year 2004, the National Guard Civil Support Teams
    were actively involved in assisting emergency responders throughout the
    country. This included 52 requests from civil authorities.
        In accordance with Congressional mandate and Department of Defense
    direction, the National Guard will add 11 new teams in fiscal year 2005
    so that each of the 50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S.
    Territories and the District of Columbia will have at least one full-
    time team.
    Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive
            Enhanced Response Force Package
        The National Guard developed an initiative to equip and train
    existing traditional National Guard units in 12 states to provide a
    regional response in the event of a domestic Chemical, Biological,
    Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive attack. This Enhanced
    Response Force Package capability consists of traditional National
    Guard Soldiers and Airmen who are rapidly recalled and deployed in
    teams to assist emergency responders. These units can secure an
    incident site, search for and extract casualties, and conduct mass
    casualty decontamination. The Enhanced Response Force Package is
    designed to be a follow-on force that complements the detection and
    advisory functions of the Civil Support Teams.
        The National Guard Bureau identified 12 states to test this
    initiative and provided them with specialized equipment necessary to
    conduct mass casualty decontamination, medical triage, and casualty
    search and extraction. Individual and collective training on
    decontamination and medical triage tasks were successfully conducted
    during fiscal year 2004, with search and extraction training scheduled
    for fiscal year 2005.
        These traditional National Guard units are now organized, trained
    and equipped to perform this critical mission and are able to provide a
    regional response in support of both Defense Department installations
    and the civilian community should a Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
    Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive attack occur.
    National Security Special Events
        During fiscal year 2004, three National Security Special Events
    required National Guard leadership and forces to provide support to the
    Department of Homeland Security. These events were the G-8 Summit
    Conference in Sea Island, GA, the Democratic National Convention in
    Boston, MA, and the Republican National Convention in New York City.
    For each of these events, the National Guard provided support to local,
    state and federal agencies for security and protection to the
    participants and local citizenry.
        For the first time ever, these events formalized the use of a
    National Guard Officer, in a dual United States Code Title 10 and Title
    32 status as a Joint Task Force Commander. For these events, the Title
    10 and Title 32 forces were under a command and control configuration
    that promoted a single point of accountability for operations to the
    combatant command, U.S. Northern Command. It also ratified a concept of
    operations that provided unity of effort for both Homeland Security and
    Homeland Defense activities. These events and the concept of the
    operations involving the incorporation of the Title 32 forces
    established a baseline precedent that will serve this nation in the
    security and defense of its homeland.
    Intelligence for Homeland Security
        During fiscal year 2004 and continuing into 2005, the National
    Guard Bureau's Joint Intelligence Directorate instituted a number of
    well-designed initiatives. An unclassified information system called
    Homeland Security Information System was installed and is operational
    in all 54 Joint Force Headquarters. An additional unclassified system,
    the Open Source Information System, is also operational at most of
    these headquarters, with training on the system either underway or
    completed at most sites. The directorate has provided daily
    intelligence briefings to these headquarters while developing
    intelligence architecture and standardized intelligence tools that
    result in a common operating picture, situational awareness and maximum
    efficiency for information-sharing. Working with the Joint Force
    Headquarters, the Intelligence Directorate has drafted a Joint
    Intelligence Table of Distribution and Position Description, which is
    under review for approval at the Department of Defense.
        The directorate continues to evolve within the National Guard
    Bureau. We have produced the Joint Intelligence mission statement and a
    mission essential task list. A classified information system is being
    installed at the Joint Operations Center to provide information-sharing
    at the classified level. The directorate continues to establish
    partnerships with national-level intelligence agencies for information-
    sharing and to leverage training opportunities. In addition,
    intelligence support to National Security Special Events and to
    Homeland Security joint exercises is a top-priority of Joint
    Intelligence. National Guard Bureau leaders receive regular
    intelligence briefings on such events, as well as briefings on world
    and local events.

                      TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    Transformation to a Joint National Guard Bureau
        The central elements of our historic dual mission are to provide
    policy, coordination and resources that permit the augmentation of the
    Army and Air Force with federalized National Guard forces in time of
    war or national emergency and to support the governor and combatant
    commanders with non-federalized forces to meet homeland defense needs.
        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
    the concept and implementation plan to achieve formal recognition as a
    joint activity of the Department of Defense to the services, which
    would formally establish the National Guard Bureau as the Joint
    National Guard Bureau.
    Joint Force Headquarters-State
        In fiscal year 2004, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
    approved provisional operation of the Joint Force Headquarters in each
    of the 50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories and
    the District of Columbia. These headquarters serve as joint activities
    and exercise command and control over all assigned, attached or
    operationally aligned forces. They provide situational awareness of
    developing or ongoing emergencies and activities to federal and state
    authority and, as ordered, provide trained and equipped forces and
    capabilities to the military services and combatant commanders for
    federal missions. They support civil authority with capabilities and
    forces for homeland security and domestic emergencies.
        The National Guard Bureau is working to obtain approval of Joint
    Force Headquarters-State as a recognized joint activity, and submitted
    a draft Joint Table of Distribution to the Joint Staff in September
    2004.
    National Guard Enterprise Information Technology Initiatives
        The National Guard continues to aggressively promote and support
    the use of its Enterprise Information Technology for our warfighters in
    the execution of their missions at all levels, including Homeland
    Security and Homeland Defense. The National Guard Bureau is
    implementing new initiatives as part of the National Guard Enterprise
    to support the Guard's expanding role for Homeland Defense, as well as
    for mobilization and deployment. The initiative will utilize National
    Guard telecommunications resources, specifically distributed learning
    classrooms and video teleconferencing assets to link Civil Support
    Teams in thirteen states. In March 2004, the National Guard resources
    assisted the Department of Homeland Security with the ongoing
    development of Buffer Zone Protection Plans. These are a vital
    component to the overall protection of the country's key assets and
    critical infrastructure. Use of this technology saved thousands of
    dollars in travel costs; promoted sharing and collaboration among
    senior homeland security coordinators and advisors in the 50 states,
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories and the District of
    Columbia; and helped standardize information and guidance for the
    field.
        Another initiative is the development of the Virtual Mission
    Preparation capability. This is a prototype that provides a web-based,
    portal technology with the capability to display real-time unit status,
    as well as overall mobilization readiness status down to the individual
    Soldier level. It was developed in Pennsylvania to support the 28th
    Division's rotation to Bosnia. It is now being applied to Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and to stand up the 56th Stryker Brigade of the
    Pennsylvania Army National Guard. The system provides functionality
    that has application across the Army National Guard to improve
    deployability and capability to meet Department of Defense and
    emergency response missions.
    Homeland Security Joint Interagency Training Centers
        In April 2004, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau commissioned
    a study on the feasibility of creating a Homeland Security Center of
    Excellence with sites in the eastern and western United States. These
    centers would function as Joint Interagency Training Centers (JITC),
    which would provide the needed education and training to National Guard
    personnel and our intra- and interagency partners in Homeland Security
    and Homeland Defense.
        The study recommended that:
      --Camp Dawson, WV, be known as JITC-East, with the primary focus on
            Chemical, Biological, Radiological and High-Yield Explosives
            and Continuity of Operations
      --The National Interagency Civil Military Institute relocate from
            Camp San Luis Obispo to the Naval Air Station at San Diego,
            enabling the establishment of JITC-West with the mission focus
            on maritime/port security and cross border security.
        The mission of the centers is to provide a joint training
    environment that focuses on the detection, prevention and deterrence of
    the terrorist cycle over the near-term and supports the transformation
    of the Armed Forces for the long-term to win the Global War on
    Terrorism. The centers will be dual-use, military and civil support;
    provide a range of training consistent with the June 2003 Department of
    Defense Training Transformation Implementation Plan; and educate, train
    and exercise Department of Defense and Intergovernmental, Interagency
    and Multi-national partners/organizations in conjunction with ongoing
    Homeland Defense operations in accordance with guidance from the
    National Guard Bureau.
    Joint CONUS Communications Support Environment
        Under USC Title 10, one of the National Guard Bureau's purposes is
    to be the channel of communications between the National Guard of the
    several states and the Departments of the Army and Air Force. That role
    includes providing an interface for communications between federal and
    state agencies concerning incidents involving homeland security. U.S.
    Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic Command and
    other federal agencies require ``continuous situational awareness'' of
    incidents occurring in the states related to homeland security and the
    associated activities of the National Guard while acting under state or
    federal control. A command and control requirement exists when both the
    president and governor agree to designate a National Guard commander
    under the provisions of USC title 32, Section 325 for National Security
    Special Events. This was the case during 2004 for the G8 Summit and
    both national political conventions.
        In 2004, the National Guard Bureau initiated implementation of the
    Joint Continental United States Communications Support Environment.
    This state-federal network connectivity concept involves national-level
    management and integration by long haul, tactical and other service
    communication capabilities. This system will provide U.S. Northern
    Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic command and the Joint
    Force Headquarters-State with connectivity to and through state
    networks to an incident site. The system environment includes
    information technology support to the National Guard Bureau Joint
    Operations Center, a Joint Force Headquarters-State communications
    element, network-centric connectivity state-to-state, vertical
    connectivity to incident sites (to include mobile wireless capability)
    and both radio and satellite systems to provide a National Guard
    Homeland Security Communications Capability. This approach was used in
    real world situations during the political conventions and the
    hurricanes in Florida with outstanding results.
    Transforming the Mobilization and Demobilization Process
        The Logistics Directorate of the National Guard Bureau is charged
    with the responsibility for monitoring the mobilization process of
    National Guard units. Transformation of these processes is essential to
    maintain a strong, reliable National Guard and to support the combatant
    commanders during wartime.
        Mobilization of the National Guard is continuing at historic
    proportions. Not since World War II have the numbers of reservists who
    have been called to active duty been as high as they are today.
    Currently, more than 40 percent of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and
    Marines participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom are Reservists. The Guard alone has mobilized over 100,000
    Soldiers and Airmen since the attack on the United States on September
    11, 2001.
        Transformation and reform of the mobilization and demobilization
    process go hand-in-hand for the National Guard. In 2003, the United
    States Joint Forces Command was tasked to transform the mobilization
    and demobilization processes. The National Guard Logistics Directorate
    worked with the command and the other services and components to report
    recommendations to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the
    fall of 2004. Many of those recommendations have been instituted by the
    services, either as a result of that report or as self-initiated better
    business practices.
        Greater time efficiency is achieved by improving the mobilization
    process. Several of the recommendations focused on the readiness of
    Reserve units prior to their mobilization date. Implementing those
    recommendations resulted in a reduction in the length of time a unit or
    Guardsman spends at a mobilization station.
        The mobilization and deployment processes at the onset of the
    Global War on Terrorism were designed for the Cold War era. Today,
    there is a more immediate and urgent demand for the National Guard. We
    must transform the process to be more efficient and effective in
    putting more ``boots on the ground'' . . . Protecting America at Home
    and Abroad!

                            STATE ADJUTANTS GENERAL

        Major General (Ret) Crayton M. Bowen, The Adjutant General,
    Alabama.
        Major General (AK) Craig E. Campbell, The Adjutant General, Alaska.
        Major General David P. Rataczak, The Adjutant General, Arizona.
        Major General Don C. Morrow, The Adjutant General, Arkansas.
        Major General Thomas W. Eres, The Adjutant General, California.
        Major General Mason C. Whitney, The Adjutant General, Colorado.
        Major General William A. Cugno, The Adjutant General, Connecticut.
        Major General Francis D. Vavala, The Adjutant General, Delaware.
        Major General (DC) David F. Wherley, Jr., The Adjutant General, DC.
        Major General Douglas Burnett, The Adjutant General, Florida.
        Major General David B. Poythress, The Adjutant General, Georgia.
        Colonel Jerry M. Rivera, The Adjutant General, Guam.
        Major General Robert G. F. Lee, The Adjutant General, Hawaii.
        Major General (ID) Lawrence F. Lafrenz, The Adjutant General,
    Idaho.
        Brigadier General (IL) Randal E. Thomas, The Adjutant General,
    Illinois.
        Major General R. Martin Umbarger, The Adjutant General, Indiana.
        Major General G. Ron Dardis, The Adjutant General, Iowa.
        Major General (KS) Tod M. Bunting, The Adjutant General, Kansas.
        Major General (KY) Donald C. Storm, The Adjutant General, Kentucky.
        Major General Bennett C. Landreneau, The Adjutant General,
    Louisiana.
        Brigadier General (ME) John W. Libby, The Adjutant General, Maine.
        Major General Bruce F. Tuxill, The Adjutant General, Maryland.
        Major General (Ret) George W. Keefe, The Adjutant General,
    Massachusetts.
        Major General Thomas G. Cutler, The Adjutant General, Michigan.
        Major General Larry W. Shellito, The Adjutant General, Minnesota.
        Major General Harold A. Cross, The Adjutant General, Mississippi.
        Brigadier General (MO) King E. Sidwell, The Adjutant General,
    Missouri.
        Major General (MT) Randall D. Mosley, The Adjutant General,
    Montana.
        Major General Roger P. Lempke, The Adjutant General, Nebraska.
        Major General Giles E. Vanderhoof, The Adjutant General, Nevada.
        Brigadier General Kenneth R. Clark, The Adjutant General, New
    Hampshire.
        Major General (NJ) Glenn K. Rieth, The Adjutant General, New
    Jersey.
        Brigadier General (NM) Kenny C. Montoya, The Adjutant General, New
    Mexico.
        Major General Thomas P. Maguire, Jr., The Adjutant General, New
    York.
        Major General William E. Ingram, Jr., The Adjutant General, North
    Carolina.
        Major General Michael J. Haugen, The Adjutant General, North
    Dakota.
        Major General (OH) Gregory L. Wayt, The Adjutant General, Ohio.
        Major General (OK) Harry M. Wyatt, The Adjutant General, Oklahoma.
        Brigadier General Raymond C. Byrne, Jr., The Acting Adjutant
    General, Oregon.
        Major General (PA) Jessica L. Wright, The Adjutant General,
    Pennsylvania.
        Brigadier General (PR) Francisco A. Marquez, The Adjutant General,
    Puerto Rico.
        Major General Reginald A. Centracchio, The Adjutant General, Rhode
    Island.
        Major General (Ret) Stanhope S. Spears, The Adjutant General, South
    Carolina.
        Major General Michael A. Gorman, The Adjutant General, South
    Dakota.
        Major General Gus L. Hargett, Jr., The Adjutant General, Tennessee.
        Major General Wayne D. Marty, The Adjutant General, Texas.
        Major General Brian L. Tarbet, The Adjutant General, Utah.
        Major General Martha T. Rainville, The Adjutant General, Vermont.
        Major General Claude A. Williams, The Adjutant General, Virginia.
        Brigadier General (VI) Eddy L. Charles, The Adjutant General,
    Virgin Islands.
        Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, The Adjutant General,
    Washington.
        Major General Allen E. Tackett, The Adjutant General, West
    Virginia.
        Major General Albert H. Wilkening, The Adjutant General, Wisconsin.
        Major General (WY) Edward L. Wright, The Adjutant General, Wyoming.

        Senator Stevens. General Schultz.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ,
                DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, UNITED
                STATES ARMY
        General Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
    thanks for recognizing the soldiers here with us today and
    Michelle Nelson, our family volunteer. This team and those they
    represent have answered every call, been up to every task. To
    this subcommittee and your colleagues, you have made what we do
    possible and we say thanks.
        Mr. Chairman, for us in the Army National Guard, we have
    $618 million being considered in the supplemental and I am here
    to tell you we need that money in both the operations and the
    personnel accounts. Without favorable consideration, we will
    not be able to make it through the May timeframe within our
    current budgets. Mr. Chairman, that same condition would not be
    found inside the active component budgets today, and anything
    that you can do to help encourage the process through the
    supplemental reviews would be most important for the Army.
        Mr. Chairman, I stand by for your questions.
        Senator Stevens. General James.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES, III,
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, UNITED STATES
                AIR FORCE
        General James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. It is always a pleasure to come here and speak
    before this subcommittee because of the support that you have
    provided to our National Guard and Reserve components. Without
    your support and help, we would not have the readiness levels
    and the quality of life that we enjoy today as the 21st century
    Minutemen and women.
        Also, thank you for your recognition of these fine soldiers
    and family members that are here today. They all serve in their
    own capacity and we could not do our job without them.

                             AIR SOVEREIGNTY ALERT

        As we sit here today, I reflect on the members of this
    subcommittee and every face that I see has a member, on this
    subcommittee, has an organization that is now engaged in the
    war on terrorism, whether it be on air sovereignty alert, where
    the Happy Hooligans and the Green Mountain Boys and the Tacos
    from New Mexico are sitting alert today and the Warriors from
    the F-15 squadron in Hawaii are also sitting alert.
        We truly guard America's skies and we are very proud and
    capable of doing that. We want to continue to do that because
    we bring great value to our Nation.

                       AIR NATIONAL GUARD FLYING MISSIONS

        The C-130J is being introduced for the 175th there in
    Maryland. The C-17, the premier airlifter in Air Mobility
    Command and U.S. Transportation Command, from the 172nd in
    Jackson, Mississippi, is engaged in their conversion and will
    soon be mission ready, but they are already still flying
    missions in theater as part of their training. Of course, we
    will have involvement in the C-17 in Hawaii in a unique
    arrangement with the active component as well, and possibly in
    the future in Alaska. So this diverse missioning that is
    represented by the members that are here today does not go
    unnoticed.
        The men and women of the Air National Guard have had
    another very exceptional year. We have been engaged both in
    theater and around the world in different exercises, but most
    importantly in the war, in the global war on terrorism. We
    believe, as the Chief mentioned, that our primary mission is in
    homeland defense, but one of the things that allows us to do
    that mission is that we are trained for a Federal mission.
    Homeland defense in depth is our primary mission and we also
    want to make sure that we have the capabilities that our
    Governors need when called upon, whether it be for a natural
    disaster or a man-made emergency.
        We will continue to perform both the homeland defense
    mission and the expeditionary missions as our organization
    transforms to meet our future requirements.
        I thank you again for your support and I look forward to
    entertaining your questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        We will have a 5-minute rule now and we will recognize
    members in the order in which they came to the subcommittee's
    table, with the exception of the chairman. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I am happy to hear the report about the combat brigade. We
    are really proud in Mississippi that the 155th Combat Brigade
    is on duty and discharging their responsibilities in a
    professional way, with a lot of courage and skill. We
    appreciate their service. I remember that we had that similar
    brigade mobilized 10 years ago in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
    They did not quite make it to the theater that time. They ended
    up in the training center when the war was over. But they went
    through training in Fort Hood and were ready to go if needed as
    a round-out brigade of the First Cavalry at that time. So we
    are very proud of our soldiers and all of them have acquitted
    themselves honorably, I am advised.
        General James, you mentioned the aircraft, the C-17 in
    Jackson, Mississippi. We were very proud to be selected as a
    port, as a facility, as an airfield for those planes. Do you
    see this continuing to be part of a plan of the Air National
    Guard forces? You mentioned Hawaii. Are there plans to also
    deploy those C-17's elsewhere in the country at National Guard
    facilities?

           BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) AND FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        General James. We cannot say exactly where they will be
    deployed. With the impact of BRAC and future total force, we
    will make an adjustment where we can. Right now, with the buy
    as set at 180, we do not have any other aircraft that are being
    designated to go to National Guard units in the country.
        That is why we have used the different type of structures.
    We have an associate type unit in Hawaii, where we have active
    duties and National Guard members flying the aircraft in
    Hawaii, as opposed to what we call a unit-equipped unit in
    Jackson. I look forward to a day when we will have community
    basing and where we will have active duty members coming to
    Jackson, living in the community, and flying there. That would
    impact the connection to the community in the very positive way
    that General Blum mentioned earlier.
        Also, I believe--and my colleague Lieutenant General John
    Bradley will probably talk about this--there is an associate
    Active and Reserve associate C-17 unit that will be operating
    in Alaska. But if the buy goes past 150, then we will have
    additional assets to look at stationing in other places in the
    United States, continental United States or overseas.
        Senator Cochran. General Blum, you mentioned the incentives
    that you are suggesting that we consider providing funding to
    support for reenlistments and streamlining the process from
    active duty to Reserve units or National Guard units. Do you
    have any cost estimates of what the impact will be on the
    budget, if any, for these initiatives that you are suggesting?
        General Blum. Yes, Senator. What we have done is we have
    consulted with all of the 54 adjutants general (TAGs) that are
    responsible to recruit and retain citizen soldiers and airmen
    in their States and territories. We have distilled this down
    into the top 10 initiatives that we think that we will require
    some additional authorities or policies adjustment to be able
    to do that.
        Then what we did is our best estimate of what those
    policies or authorities might mean in terms of dollars amount
    or in terms of authorizations that would have to be associated
    with them. We have provided that to this subcommittee. I am
    comfortable with 8 out of 10 of these. Two of them are shown
    as--essentially, you could read this as cost-neutral, but I do
    not think they really are. I would, rather than put ``not
    available'' (NA) on this chart, I would rather put ``unknown.''
    There is some associated cost to it, but I am not prepared to
    tell you what that is today. I would have to take that for the
    record and do a little bit of homework for those two.
        But the rest--but the authorities are exactly what the
    adjutants general have advised the three of us as the tools
    they will need to be able to achieve end strength in
    Mississippi and Hawaii and Maryland and every other State and
    territory in the country.
        Senator Cochran. General Schultz, there was some question
    10 years ago. I mentioned the experience of the 155th being
    mobilized. There was concern about the physical conditioning of
    the troops and whether or not they were ready for combat
    situations. I am told that that is not a problem now, that this
    is a situation with recent experience that the physical
    condition and the physical readiness of the troops were such
    that no delay was needed, and that is one reason we were able
    to see troops transferred directly to the theater where they
    were needed to take part in active combat operations.
        Is that a correct assumption that I am making?
        General Schultz. Mr. Chairman, that is a correct
    assumption. Average age of the Army National Guard soldiers on
    active duty today is 31 years, so perhaps slightly older than
    an Active component peer. But we track statistics all the time
    in terms of medical condition, reasons soldiers leave the
    theater, and the issue of fitness is not a question.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        General Blum, the State of Hawaii as a territory and as a
    State has always stood high in sending their sons and daughters
    to serve when called upon. I notice from your chart here that
    the State of Hawaii has 51 percent of the Guard committed and
    mobilized, to a low of 5 percent for some other States. What is
    the policy that brings about this divergence of percentages?
        General Blum. That is an excellent question, Senator
    Inouye. The contribution Hawaii made in this particular case
    was a decision made by the adjutant general and the Governor in
    consultation with the National Guard Bureau and the Department
    of the Army as to how much of the 29th Brigade Combat Team we
    wanted to take out of Hawaii and how much was going to actually
    remain in State. There was some flexibility offered to the
    State. Governor Lingall and General Lee felt that we could take
    the entire brigade, as we did. In fact, they almost insisted on
    it, and they felt comfortable that we had leveraged enough Air
    National Guard and Army National Guard units remaining in
    Hawaii to provide them 49, just about 50 percent, about one-
    half of the capabilities, which is what we promised the
    Governor we would do.
        In addition, because of Hawaii's unique location and who
    lives there in terms of Department of Defense equities that are
    there, they have a fairly robust Navy and Air Force and Coast
    Guard contribution that is also, because the joint force
    headquarters exists in Hawaii, they are able to leverage those
    capabilities as well. So Governor Lingall is quite comfortable
    that if anything were to happen in Hawaii she has the Civil
    Support Team, she has one of these CERFP packages, this
    enhanced response, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) force
    packages. One of those is existing in Hawaii today. It is there
    now. She has and General Lee has over just one-half of their
    joint capabilities between the Army and the Air National Guard.
        You notice that Hawaii is the lowest, the lowest percentage
    of capability that we left in the States. All of the other
    States--red is good on this chart, by the way, for those of you
    that are not used to looking at a chart with red on it and
    seeing it as good. The larger the piece of the pie that is red,
    the better it is for the Governor. That means the more
    capabilities that are still home and available to them.
        You can see that all of those pie charts, almost three-
    quarters of the pie is still there, even though we have such a
    large number of troops deployed. That is done in conjunction
    and collaboration with General Schultz with the Army Guard,
    General James of the Air Guard. And frankly, the United States
    Army, General Schoomaker and United States Air Force, General
    Jumper, have worked very closely with us to make sure we had
    the flexibility to not pull too much capability out of any
    State and leave any State or Governor uncovered such if a
    natural disaster or terrorist attack should occur in their
    State.
        Sir, does that address your concern?
        Senator Inouye. In other words, General, are you telling me
    that if the Governor had resisted or requested a smaller force
    to be mobilized Hawaii would have had a smaller force?
        General Blum. Yes, sir, they would have. We would have left
    another battalion in Hawaii and we would have taken another
    battalion from another State that has a much larger piece of
    the pie, so to speak, left in State. I think that is the right
    way to defend America, frankly, and I think also modularity,
    the Army modular force, will even give us greater flexibility
    in the future as we move to that, because we will be able to
    plug and play pieces and elements, where in the past we would
    have to pull a big unit out of one State and leave that State
    with no capability to respond here at home.
        Senator Inouye. So in a State that has 5 percent mobilized,
    I would assume that the Governor did not want the troops to be
    sent out?
        General Blum. No, that is not the case, sir. I do not want
    to mislead anybody. A State that only has 5 percent mobilized
    right now on a chart 6 months or 1 year ago may have had 40 or
    30 or 20 percent of that State gone. It just means that we have
    probably used those soldiers already and now it is someone
    else's opportunity to serve.
        Senator Inouye. General Schultz--thank you very much,
    General Blum.
        General Blum. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye [continuing]. I note that the Guard is
    having problems with recruiting and retention. Can you tell us
    about it?
        General Schultz. Yes. Senator, we have today reached 97
    percent of our end strength objectives for the year. Now, as a
    data point that sounds okay, but what we are really in need of
    today is recruiting performance, more enlistments. Today both
    in the prior service and the non-prior service marks we are off
    our objectives by some measure.
        General Blum has already outlined March was a 5,200 plus
    enlistment month. We expect April to be another 5,000 plus
    enlistment month.
        Mr. Chairman, as we talk about recruiting I would just
    outline that incentives make a difference. For example, in the
    area of retention we have, by comparison with last year's
    reenlistment rates, three times the number of soldiers
    reenlisting than we did just 1 year ago. So a 3 to 1 ratio in
    terms of an incentive that this committee helped clear last
    year from the Congress. So those items in terms of incentives
    are making a difference.
        Our challenge is in recruiting and that is the target that
    we have had at the recruiters and no doubt given more focus out
    in the States.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. General Blum, following up on that
    enlistment bonus, I am told we have bonuses that range from
    $1,000 for a 2-year enlistment to $20,000 for a 6-year
    enlistment and that you have been reviewing those. We have in
    the bill already before us a $10,000 increase for enlistment
    from the Air Force to the Army--from active duty into the Guard
    or Reserve.
        Now, what you just said is going to mean I am going to face
    an amendment on the floor pretty clearly. Why can you not use
    the money we have got now? You have authority to go up to
    $20,000 if you want to do it. Why do you ask now for a change?
    In effect, you are asking for a change in our bill today; you
    know that, General?
        General Blum. Well, that would be the second order effect,
    yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. But if we have the clear
    authority to go beyond the $10,000--here is my concern----
        Senator Stevens. You do have that authority up to $20,000
    in special circumstances.
        General Blum. Then we would have no issue. If I have that
    authority, then we can make the programmatic change.
        Senator Stevens. Am I correctly informed? It is based on
    critical skills to go above the $10,000.
        General Blum. Well, if we have that authority and we have
    the authority to determine what the critical skills are and
    what the needs are, then I have adequate authority and we can
    reprogram the money we have.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye and I are reluctant to see
    a start of amendments to this bill of ours at the last minute.
    So I would hope that we will try to take it into conference the
    way it is, and you let us know if you do not have the authority
    you need. I am sure in conference both House and Senate will
    respond to your needs, but I just do not want to have a flood
    of amendments here at the last minute trying to add to this
    bill.
        General Blum. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I think,
    based on what you just outlined to me, we have adequate
    authorities to move forward with this and I appreciate,
    frankly, the significant change in the bonus offering because I
    think it will have a dramatic effect.
        Senator Stevens. That is our intent, to work with you. I do
    think recruitment is absolutely essential, that we pay a great
    deal of attention right now. There is no question a substantial
    number of reenlistments are necessary to maintain the force we
    have.
        General Schultz, we provided $95 million for the Guard and
    Reserve equipment in the 2005 bill. General Schultz--General
    James, we had the same amount for the Air National Guard. Are
    those going to fulfil your requirements?
        General Schultz. Mr. Chairman, they have filled critical
    needs for us. Most of the items, much of the equipment we
    bought with that amount of appropriations, you will find in
    Iraq and Kuwait and Afghanistan today. We bought critical items
    of need for our units deploying and of course we deploy units
    at the highest level of readiness: machine guns, night vision
    devices, trucks. We bought all kinds of things that our units
    were short prior to their deployment into the combat theater.
    So we have applied those units to our readiness-related
    requirements.
        But we do still have a shortage, but our priority across
    the Guard is to get units ready for their combat tours, and we
    are able to do that by cross-leveling some of the items that
    this community has provided for us.
        Senator Stevens. General James, the same question to you
    about the $95 million that we provided you.
        General James. Well, first of all thank you for that. That
    account is one of the ways that we are able to fund some
    programs that do not make the cut with the program objective
    memorandum (POM) at the Air Force level. The Senate has been
    very generous in doing that.
        We do feel we still do have some requirements that we would
    like funded. However, we have prioritized that, filled the
    critical ones that we have. It has given us the opportunity to
    do some things that we need to do, but there are still some
    issues that need funding. One of them is the large aircraft
    infrared countermeasures systems, the LAIRCM modification. I
    have a list of how the moneys are being spent that I can give
    the staff and I can highlight some of the areas that you can
    give us some additional help if it is there.
        Senator Stevens. Well, as you indicated, I just finished
    visiting the 172nd at Fort Wainwright and Fort Richardson in my
    State and they are in transition now to go over with their new
    equipment. The items you mentioned, are they available for
    units such as that?
        General James. The C-130 has a high priority in getting an
    updated large aircraft infrared system.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        General Blum, I wrote down one of your statements and I
    think I am probably quoting you correctly. Correct me if I am
    wrong. You said you were not certain that the Air Staff
    understands the value and benefit of a community-based Air
    National Guard.
        That set off a lot of alarm bells and sort of reconfirmed a
    fear I have. I appreciate your candor. It is helpful to us. I
    hope it is not hurtful to you. But let me ask about that. We
    are going into a BRAC round where there will be decisions made
    that can have a profound impact on the Air Guard. Can you
    amplify on this statement that you are not certain the Air
    Staff understands the value and benefit of community-based----
        General Blum. Yes, Senator. And it is not only the Air
    Staff. There is nothing evil in this. It is sort of like high
    frequency hearing loss.
        Senator Dorgan. That is even more candor, General.
        Senator Stevens. We can all tell you something about that.

                COMMUNITY-BASED CITIZEN SOLDIER AND AIRMEN FORCE

        General Blum. The Active component I do not think has an
    intrinsic appreciation for the fact that when you call out the
    Guard you call out America. That is very, very powerful for
    this Nation. The reason that when you call out the Guard you
    call out America is that you are calling up every home town, as
    you can see from the charts that we have been showing and as
    you can tell from your constituents. They feel the people that
    are at war in this Nation really are those that are serving and
    the families and employers of those people. When you are
    talking about families and employers you are only usually
    talking about the Reserve component, and the Guard has an
    extremely high number of this contribution.
        I do not want to lose the goodness of a community-based
    citizen soldier and airman force. I am afraid that some well-
    intended people who put their programmatics together or their
    analytics together for the future force did not factor in the
    fact that if you do not have a community base you probably do
    not have a community-based force, and pretty soon you do not
    have the capability that we have come to expect and call upon
    in this Nation for the last at least 32 years. The next time we
    need it, we will not be able to regenerate it or reestablish
    it.
        So if it puts some alarm bells off, that is good. I think
    it should and I think it should be a tough question that
    defense planners and senior military people like myself should
    have to be able to answer as we talk about how we are going to
    defend the Nation in the future and how we are going to shape
    the Army and the Navy and the Air Force of the future.
        Senator Dorgan. General, I share those concerns and I think
    every State has an Air Guard. Some have more than one Air Guard
    unit. There is a lot of concern about where we might be after
    BRAC. Especially if homeland security is a priority, when you
    take a look at what is implied with respect to the retiring of
    the number of airplanes in the Air Guard, you wonder how that
    can square with the top priority being homeland security.
        I would like to mention, General James, I spent Monday with
    the Happy Hooligans, which is the Air Guard unit in Fargo. You
    are well familiar with them. They have had more accident-free
    hours in F-16s than anyone else in the entire world. They are
    the only Air Guard unit that has ever won the William Tell
    Trophy three times. This is an Air Guard unit which flies in
    the worldwide meet to test pilots and crews against the best of
    our Air Force and the best in the world. They are the only Air
    Guard unit that has won it three times, the only F-16 unit that
    has won the Hughes Award.
        In fact, they are flying fighter cover over our Nation's
    Capital, as you know, out of Langley. But the best pilots in
    the world happen to fly the oldest iron, the oldest F-16s,
    which are set to retire in 2007. Then we see coming from the
    Pentagon discussions about the number of F-16s and the older
    planes that will be retired, a dramatic percentage. In my
    judgment that seems at odds with the top priority of homeland
    security.
        I wonder if you could tell me your impression of that and
    perhaps also General Blum.

                          AIR NATIONAL GUARD AIRCRAFT

        General James. Well, Senator, you are right. The Air Force
    has a difficult decision to make. They have to program for the
    new aircraft that are coming, and we know that there will be
    dramatically fewer aircraft, i.e., the F/A-22 and the Joint
    Strike Fighter, the F-35 as it has been designated. Because
    there will be fewer, we still will have the capability because
    these aircraft are more capable.
        Our problem becomes one in the National Guard, in the Air
    National Guard, that the F-16s that we have are more what they
    call the legacy airplanes. The Block 15s that you have and that
    we have in Tucson, in the unit in Tucson, the foreign training
    unit, are the oldest, and then the Block 25s and the Block 30s.
    Right now the Block 25s and some of the Block 30s are slated to
    go out of the inventory.
        I would propose that we look very closely at this after
    BRAC comes out and work very closely with the adjutants general
    and with the programmer for the Air Force, Lieutenant General
    Wood, to make sure that we do this in such a manner that if we
    do not have aircraft to replace those aircraft that come out,
    that we do have new missions to replace those aircraft that
    come out. Otherwise, we could get in a situation where I call
    it the units would be uncovered, in other words they would not
    have a Federal mission.
        In my mind that really sets off bells, because the Air
    Force has told us that they are going to sustain our current
    level of manpower, however I am not sure that folks in other
    parts of the Pentagon will see that as sustainable in fact if
    we have units uncovered. So we are going to work very hard to
    get missions to those units that lose aircraft.
        Senator Dorgan. Could either of you just address that
    question of the top priority being homeland security with a
    substantial----
        Senator Stevens. Your time has expired.
        Senator Dorgan. All right, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    Generals and to the men and women that you represent at this
    table.
        I would like to come back to the issues related to
    recruitment and retention and to focus on retention, because I
    think that has been a troubling aspect. General Blum, when you
    talked about those bonuses and that they have been effective,
    are those bonuses tax free?
        General Blum. Senator Mikulski, they are tax free if you
    take advantage of them in the combat zone. For instance, I
    watched 256 soldiers from Louisiana reenlist in theater, which
    is quite remarkable in itself. They were from the 256th Brigade
    Combat Team. They reenlisted en masse. Each one of them would
    have had a tax-free reenlistment. All 15,000 would have been.
        Senator Mikulski. But for anyone else reenlisting--it is
    only tax free in a combat zone, is that correct?
        General Blum. That is correct. Sorry. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. And we understand why. I mean, they are
    literally in the line of fire and it is a way of thanking them
    for being willing to re-sign up.
        Is this an issue also, for those who are not in the combat
    zone? Would a tax free status be helpful in terms of retention
    or a way that does not exacerbate tensions with those that are
    literally in the line of fire? This is a tricky question. It is
    not meant to be a trick question. But it is delicate or
    possibly prickly.
        General Blum. A simple candid answer is that incentives
    work. So the more of it that you get to keep, the more of an
    incentive it is.
        Senator Mikulski. The more cash they end up with.
        General Blum. Of course, yes.
        Senator Mikulski. I understand.
        Now, when we look at retention, we also know that there has
    been, as you said in your own testimony, the inequities at
    times with active duty. Again, we do not want to exacerbate
    problems between active duty and Guard and Reserve, but what is
    one of the most significant drawbacks that the troops have told
    you about retention? Is it the operations tempo (OPSTEMPO)? Is
    it the fact that they are called up so frequently? Is it the
    fact that there is such a big pay gap that their family is
    enormously suffering because of this?
        What are the retention flashpoints?
        General Blum. There are two that come to mind. And General
    Schultz, if I fail to cover them, you jump in on this. There
    are two that come to mind.
        The first one, which you would least expect, is that
    soldiers have told me they will redeploy to the combat zone
    again, but they will not go through the mobilization process
    again, they would get out first. So that tells me we need to
    really look at the mobilization process hard and make sure that
    it is not as painful as it appears to be, is perceived to be by
    those who have to live it and go through it, not the ones that
    conduct it, the ones who actually have to suffer through that
    process.
        Then the other item is that about one-third of our soldiers
    suffer financial losses to the point that it is almost
    untenable for them.
        Senator Mikulski. What would be the recommendation on that?
    We have heard horror stories in Maryland. I worked hands-on
    with you when your duty assignment was Maryland, with General
    Tuxell, our Air Force guy, now head of our Maryland National
    Guard. What are these issues?
        We, Senator Durbin and I, have talked about the Federal
    Government making up the pay gap. What would be some of the
    concrete steps that we could take to deal with this financial
    hardship that families are facing, not for a few months, but
    now for multi-years? I talked to one marine who has come back
    and he has lost $20,000 a year for 3 years. That is $60,000.
    That could have put his son or daughter through the University
    of Maryland for 4 years.
        General Blum. Senator, there are three elements to having a
    sound and functional Army and Air Guard. One is the citizen
    soldier. We have to get the right people, the right incentives
    to be able to compete in a level playing field for a recruited
    force. That is what we are talking. They are all volunteers,
    but they are recruited.
        The second is we have got to make sure the families do not
    suffer too extremely while they are deployed----
        Senator Mikulski. Right, and how do you want to do that?
    What are your recommendations?
        General Blum. Then the third is the employer. I think that
    we probably need to look at some way to ensure that families
    are not financially ruined for answering the call.
        Senator Mikulski. What are your recommendations and what
    does the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon say?
        General Blum. Well, I will tell you what. I will take that
    for the record and I will provide you some ideas that we have
    come up with. But it really would be for this body and Congress
    to decide what they would like to legislate. The tax relief----
        [The information follows:]

        The top three recommendations for Personnel Benefits
    provided below will assist the National Guard in meeting their
    recruiting and retention goals.
        First, BAH II should be eliminated or the threshold should
    be reduced for paying BAH II in lieu of BAH. BAH II is the
    housing allowance that is presently authorized for reservists
    serving on active duty for fewer than 140 days. The net
    averages of the difference between BAH II and BAH have been
    approximately $300 per member per month. This has a direct
    impact on bottom line take home pay. Active duty and reserve
    component members serving side-by-side should be compensated at
    the same rate. Therefore, BAH II should either be eliminated
    completely or at least the threshold for paying BAH II should
    be reduced from the current 140 days threshold.
        Second, we want to have the authority and funding to pay
    the $15,000 affiliation bonus which would allow us to
    transition someone directly from active duty into the National
    Guard. In the Supplemental which was passed in May 2005, we
    received the authority to pay a $10,000 affiliation bonus,
    however this authority will expire on September 30, 2005 unless
    a new authority is passed. The reason we need this affiliation
    bonus at the $15,000 mark is because Prior Service members
    without a Military Service Obligation (MSO) are eligible for a
    Prior Service enlistment bonus of $15,000. This means there is
    a built in incentive for a Prior Service member with the MSO to
    wait for the MSO to expire and then enlist without the MSO to
    receive the $15,000 bonus. Therefore, if we are able to offer
    the $15,000 affiliation bonus, it would help us recover these
    members who are already trained from their active service.
        Third, as you know the National Guard is comprised of both
    the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard and, in this
    case, we have slightly different requirements which could meet
    their needs. For the Army National Guard, we would like to
    expand the parameters of offering the tax-free reenlistment
    bonus to include all members who deploy for one year, even if
    the actual reenlistment doesn't occur while they are in the
    combat zone. We believe all our members who deploy for one year
    should be eligible for this tax-free benefit without penalizing
    those members who will deploy, however, not have their
    reenlistment occur during the actual deployment. Air National
    Guard members are deployed for shorter periods of time and few
    would be eligible for the tax-free reenlistment bonus. Since a
    much larger number of Air National Guard members will be
    substantially impacted from BRAC, we want an increase in the
    retraining bonus from the current $2,000 to $10,000. By using
    this $10,000 retraining bonus, we could entice members to stay
    and retrain and therefore save money we would otherwise have to
    spend on recruiting. We believe this increased retraining bonus
    will serve us well in retaining our Air National Guard members
    during the difficult BRAC transition period.

        Senator Mikulski. But I would like to know the top three.
        General Blum. I would think that employers would benefit
    greatly. They are full partners in the defense of this Nation.
    They would benefit from some form of tax relief for being able
    to make up the differential for the employee's salary.
        Senator Mikulski. General, I would welcome those ideas.
        My time has expired, but we are all Team USA here and we
    need to make sure we not only recruit, but retention is another
    form of recruitment----
        General Blum. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. To keep the best and, as you
    said, these wonderful men and women are coming back with
    exceptional capabilities. They are going to serve Maryland,
    they are going to serve the Nation. We have got to really show
    that we are on their side and on the side of the families.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to follow up on this question that there are
    sometimes inequities with the National Guard and Reserve at a
    time when, as you know, we go into active areas and you really
    cannot tell who is Guard and who is Active military. For
    example, when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is
    called to active duty for a period of less than 140 days, that
    citizen soldier, airman, or marine receives a lower BAH II,
    basic allowance for housing. Actually that can be as much as
    $300 per month less than he or she would receive on regular
    active duty.
        Now, I raise this because last year Congress enacted a
    piece of legislation sponsored by me and Senator Bond as the
    Guard Caucus co-chairs. It authorized greater use of the Guard
    for national homeland security missions.
        A number of soldiers from the Vermont National Guard were
    called up to help increase security along the northern border,
    where we have far less people deployed than our southern
    border. They worked side by side with their active duty
    counterparts, but they received $300 per month less in housing
    allowance. They are doing exactly the same thing.
        I think it is unfair. I want you to take a look at BAH II.
    Is there any justification for keeping this lower tier of
    housing allowance in place?
        General Blum. No, sir. The way we look at it is as a
    general rule when you are called to active duty you should get
    all the rights and benefits and entitlements as anybody else
    that is serving right alongside of you in the same status,
    performing the same duty. I will go back and look at that. If
    there is something that we can do, we will do it. If not, if we
    need some assistance with legislation, we will come back to
    you, sir.
        Senator Leahy. Please let us know because I am actually
    looking forward to introducing some legislation on this. I want
    to make sure it is bipartisan legislation. So whatever you can
    give us for information will be very helpful.
        General James, Senator Dorgan was talking about the future
    total force initiative you and I have talked about this because
    of the talk of significant cuts in the Guard's aircraft force
    structure. At the same time, we are starting city basing. It is
    going to begin imminently with the Vermont Air National Guard
    in Burlington, Vermont. Active duty pilots and maintainers are
    going to come to Guard bases. I think it creates a synergy
    where the total may be greater than the sum of the parts.
        Can this basing arrangement be a model for the whole Air
    Force? Because if it would be, does that bring about an
    argument against making significant cuts in the Air National
    Guard's force structure?
        General James. Senator, the answer to that is yes, it could
    be. Community basing, as we call it now, is, as the Chief
    pointed out, a way of balancing the needs of the Air Force in
    terms of their skill levels. We have very experienced people.
    Sixty-two percent of our maintainers are seven skill levels,
    seven or higher, whereas the majority of theirs are three level
    skills.
        So it takes the best of the Guard and helps balance some of
    the needs of the Air Force. Now, the debate comes down to can
    the active duty folks who go there have the same quality of
    life. I say yes, they can. If you select Jackson, Mississippi,
    and have community basing there with active duty crews coming
    to Jackson, I think they can have the same quality of life
    there. There are some other places where there are even bases,
    like Kirtland in New Mexico, where you could have active duty
    folks there and supported by the base and flying with the New
    Mexico Air National Guard.
        So I think the community basing, city basing concept is an
    excellent way of balancing the force, giving the personnel
    system options to station people throughout the United States,
    and when they rotate back from an overseas deployment or an Air
    Expeditionary Force (AEF) involvement they have more options as
    to what assignment, where they can be assigned. I think it will
    be--I think it could turn into a win-win force.
        Now, those folks--there are people who say, no, we cannot
    do that, it is not appropriate to do that, they will not have
    the quality of life and we cannot afford it. I think we should
    look into it. I do not think this should be just a random test
    case that falls off the table. I fully support the concept of
    community basing and community involvement of the National
    Guard and the active duty.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Blum, you were spelling out the three elements that
    you thought were important and I want to make sure I heard the
    third one, which I do not believe you had a chance to say a
    word on: the citizen soldier, the family support, and then you
    said employer; did you not?
        General Blum. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Could you just say a word or two about
    that?
        General Blum. Well, I talk about a three-legged stool, the
    seat being the National Guard, the Army and Air Guard, but the
    legs that hold that stool up are these three elements: the
    soldiers themselves, the uniformed member; their families,
    because you may enlist soldiers, but you retain the families.
    And frankly, you are not going to have either one if the
    employer does not stay a willing partner. So just like a three-
    legged stool, if you pull one leg away the stool is very
    unstable and will fail. That is why I think we need to pay
    particular attention to the employers and the employer-employee
    relationship, the family member relationship, as well as the
    citizen soldier-airman relationship.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        If I am not mistaken, we maintain a program and a web site,
    the Employer Support of Guard and Reserve, ESGR, and we
    acknowledge companies and employers that make up the
    differential in pay for Guard and Reserve. Is this a positive
    element when it comes to recruitment and retention of members
    of the Guard and Reserve?
        General Blum. Of course, sir, of course it is. Any time
    someone--there is enough angst with changing from a civilian to
    a soldier to go in a combat zone or go have separation from
    your family, your loved ones, and your employer, to have added
    to that the concern that you are not going to have your job
    when you get back or you are not going to have employment when
    you get back or you are going to suffer financial ruin while
    you are gone I think was not intended by anyone and probably we
    should address that wherever we can.
        Senator Durbin. So the survey, when they ask for the
    reasons that Guard and reservists do not re-up and are not
    retained, said that family burden was number one, 95 percent.
    Too many activations and deployments, 91 percent. Deployments
    too long, 90 percent. Income loss, 78 percent. Conflict with
    civilian job, 77 percent. So that really kind of tells the
    story as to the retention challenge that we have.
        Now, some members seem to believe that there is a
    resentment among the active military when a Guard or Reserve
    member is receiving this pay differential, meaning that that
    Guard or reservist may be actually getting more money each
    month than the active soldier. Have you heard of this?
        General Blum. I do not actually think that that exists,
    frankly, Senator. There are no two soldiers that ever existed
    or ever will exist that had exactly identical income. I mean,
    you know that some soldiers get chocolate chip cookies from
    their mom, they get their family sends them extra money. That
    does not mean there is angst in the ranks over that.
        It is very, very rare that two soldiers sharing a foxhole
    are going to talk about their income tax returns or how much
    money they make. They are worried about doing their mission and
    defending their Nation.
        Senator Durbin. That is the point that Senator Mikulski and
    I have made in our bill here, because it turns out that 10
    percent of the Guard and Reserve happen to be Federal employees
    and it turns out that the Federal Government is one of the
    few--I should not say one of the few--is one of the major
    employers which does not make up the difference in pay. So we
    have introduced a bill together--this is our third try--to make
    that--do away with that inequity, to make sure that the Federal
    Government makes up that pay differential.
        But I wanted to address the necessity, number one, and the
    most common complaint, that active soldiers would resent it,
    which you have addressed as well. So thank you very much for
    doing that.
        General Blum. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Durbin. General James, you mentioned an unfunded
    need for large aircraft infrared countermeasures. Could you
    tell us a little bit more about that?

                    LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES

        General James. The newer equipment that comes on, the C-17s
    and so forth, have built-in infrared countermeasure protection.
    One of our highest priorities is to fund that for our C-5s and
    our C-17s and even the C-130Js I do not believe have that. That
    is why it is at the top of our list. We have such a high
    OPTEMPO there in those airplanes with the two-theater or two
    locations of the conflict that is going on.
        I can give you the exact numbers. I do not know that I have
    what the shortfall is, but I would be more than happy to
    furnish that.
        Senator Durbin. Would you please do that, provide some
    detail for us? I would appreciate that very much.
        [The information follows:]

        The Air National Guard is currently installing Large
    Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) on Special Mission
    HC/MC-130s in two of our three Combat Search and Rescue
    Squadrons. We have also made strides in installing LAIRCM on
    our combat delivery C-130s. As Air National Guard (ANG) force
    structure changes, every aircraft we employ and deploy must be
    as survivable as possible. With this philosophy in mind, the
    ANG has invested in excess of $42 million of fiscal years 2004
    and 2005 National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account funding
    on LAIRCOM to modernize our Special Mission/Combat Delivery C-
    130 fleet. We have an overall requirement to equip 152 C/HC/MC/
    EC-130s with LAIRCM.

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the rest of my
    time, but I would like to take what is remaining and
    acknowledge in the audience here Sergeant Tara Niles, who is
    from the Illinois National Guard, who has been activated,
    served in Iraq, left two children behind with godparents who
    were happy to watch them, and she is now back home in
    Springfield, Illinois, going to school and working at Camp
    Lincoln. I want to thank her and all of the soldiers here for
    their service, particularly the Guard and Reserves that I have
    had a chance to meet and to share some of those experiences
    with.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        For the information of the subcommittee, there are
    amendments now pending on the floor that directly impact this
    subcommittee. Senator Inouye has gone to watch the floor for
    us. We will continue here into the next panel.
        Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that we have to
    stay on so long, but some of us have some urgency about our
    questions.
        First, I say to all three of you Generals, I do not believe
    the active military leaders had ever contemplated that we would
    place such burdens on the National Guard and Reserves. As a
    consequence, I believe you are treated as second class
    generals. And I hate to tell you that, but I do.
        For instance, as they talk about in the Pentagon, about the
    new kind of military we are going to have in the future, you
    have heard the Secretary of Defense talk about how it is going
    to be different. I just wonder, maybe you could tell me,
    General Blum, how much input have they asked of you in terms of
    how that new force structure, new military, is going to look
    like under this streamlined, changed military of the future?
        General Blum. Senator Domenici, are we talking about the
    Army or the Air Force?
        Senator Domenici. I do not care. You tell me all of them,
    each one of you.
        General Blum. I do not wait, Senator. I have got a clear
    record. First of all, I do not consider myself nor my two
    colleagues second class in any respect.
        Senator Domenici. Oh, that is all right. I am a Senator; I
    can say what I want. You can say what you like.
        General Blum. We do not often wait to be asked. We have our
    opinions and our inputs. They are not always considered--I
    mean, they are not always accepted, but they are always
    considered, at least at the highest levels. General Jumper on
    the Air side and General Moseley and General Schoomaker and
    General Cody on the Army side, we have their ear. We can get
    our thoughts in to them when we need to.
        The head of the snake, I think, the heads of the two snakes
    are solid. The problem is that there is a whole lot, there is a
    whole lot of snake that pig has to go through in the Pentagon
    before it comes out. So while the head can agree----
        Senator Domenici. You have got it right.
        General Blum [continuing]. The process can take it many,
    many different directions, and often does, and we have to stay
    very vigilant to that to make sure that what the senior leaders
    agree to and accept ends up happening.
        Senator Domenici. I want to clarify the record. I was not
    suggesting that you are second class Generals. You are first
    class Generals.
        General Blum. I did not take it that way, sir. I just want
    to make sure you know that they do not treat us as second
    class. I do not perceive it at all.
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me tell you. The record seems
    to me to reflect that they do, and it seems to me that if they
    ever are going to learn that you cannot have two armies, two
    air forces, and expect them to be ready to fight the same war
    on the same trenches and the same skies, then you cannot have
    different equipment, you cannot have different training, and
    you cannot treat one as a purely citizen group and another as a
    ready army.
        There has got to be more meshing of the two or you are
    going to have the problems we all heard about. You all know the
    problems were there. You had your people going over there,
    especially the Army, with lesser equipment, lesser protection.
    And they got over there and then we found out about it. In
    fact, some of that had to be ascertained by people telling us.
    Defense did not come up here and tell us. We found out kind of
    by freedom of the press, to be honest with us, and military
    people being worried.
        I do not want to argue with you.
        General Blum. No, no, sir.
        Senator Domenici. But you go ahead. If you want to comment
    on that, fine.
        General Blum. I would tell you that what you said is
    entirely true until this last, until this last generation of
    senior leadership in the Army and the Air Force. Quite
    different than anything I have seen in my entire adult life
    before that. I would never have stood before this committee 3
    years ago and said anything other than what you just said. But
    with General Schoomaker's leadership of the Army and Secretary
    Harvey, they are committed to exactly what you just said
    happening.
        Senator Domenici. Are you saying the same thing, General
    James?
        General James. I agree with the Chief on that. I will tell
    you there is a differential in our staffs unlike you may have
    in your staffs. Many of our directorates are led by full
    colonels and their counterpart on the Active component is a
    one-or two-star general. So they have to be very careful about
    the way they present National Guard equities and it takes a lot
    of tact and it takes timing.
        So at the highest level there is no question of how they
    feel and look upon us and how they value us, but when it is
    time to get down to the details and slug it out for what we are
    going to really do here with this force or with this budget or
    with this weapon system, sometimes our people, they are out-
    horsepowered.
        Senator Domenici. How about General Schultz?
        General Schultz. Senator, the points you raise about
    equipment inequities were initially existing. We have taken
    those issues on and, with the support of the senior leadership
    in the Army, we have addressed those items of concern and made
    fairly serious progress in the journey here. In some cases
    Guard units are actually receiving equipment ahead of their
    active counterparts.
        Senator Domenici. Look, I have never asked the chairman how
    he felt about this, so I do not know. I understand it is hard,
    that there are two different institutions and it is not always
    that we are going to have the same kind of need to fit as we
    have right now. But we have had two in a row. One is very
    different than the other because of time.
        General Blum. I honestly think it will be more important in
    the future than it is even now, so we have got to get this
    right.
        Senator Domenici. I believe that is right. Look, I am
    talking about the F-16 versus the F-22 and F-35. Right now we
    already know they have fewer of the new ones ordered. We
    understand that. But you are not included in that at the
    offset. You are left out.
        My last question--I know I am out of time, but I want to
    say to all of you I am very worried about the fact that we have
    post-traumatic injuries to a far greater extent in this war
    than we had even in the Vietnam war, and they are real. I want
    you to be sure you look at and urge that there be adequate
    military--adequate doctor help for those that have that kind of
    problem.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. I would agree with the Senator, but we
    have to move on because we have another panel.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I join with my colleagues in welcoming Generals Blum,
    Schultz, and James. As the co-chair with Senator Leahy of the
    National Guard Caucus, I share the concerns that Senator
    Domenici has just expressed, particularly when the National
    Guard has 50 percent of the combat force in Iraq and 40 percent
    of the total force. We know that the Guard is being called on
    and we are very much concerned that you are getting short
    shrift.
        Now, progress has been made on the Army side, but let me
    address something--let me just address this to General Blum. I
    continue to hear concerns from the TAGs about the future total
    force strategy of the Air Force. I have two letters. Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to make these part of the record.
        The first one is from Brigadier General Stephen Koper,
    President of the National Guard Association. In that letter,
    addressed to Congressmen Hunter and Skelton, he talks about the
    Air National Guard. But he said, ``Our membership is expressing
    grave concerns about the direction of the future, the future
    total force (FTF) plan, and its immediate negative impact on
    Air Guard force structure. Such concerns include,'' among other
    things, ``the limited role the adjutants general have played in
    developing the FTF plan and the impact these force structure
    reductions will have on Air Guard basing in anticipation of
    BRAC.''
        Major General Ratacrak, the President of the Adjutants
    General Association, in his letter to General Jumper said: ``As
    BRAC draws near, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the
    process has been designed to validate a predetermined view of
    the futile--future total force as defined strictly by the
    active Air Force, without the substantive input of the Air
    National Guard.''
        I apologize, I had a freudian slip. I said ``the futile
    total force.'' I meant ``the future total force,'' because
    there is no substantive input from the National Guard.
        [The information follows:]

                                                        March 17, 2005.
    The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter,
    Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, 2120 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515-6035.
    The Honorable Ike Skelton,
    Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Armed Services, 2120
            Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-6035.
        Dear Chairman Hunter and Congressman Skelton: This decade our
    military forces have faced some of the greatest challenges in our
    nation's history. By supporting successful missions in Operation
    Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle and Operation Iraqi Freedom, while at the
    same time transforming to face the threats of the future, our Air
    National Guard has played a critical role in supporting U.S. strategic
    interests at home and abroad.
        Currently, the Department of the Air Force is developing its
    transformation plan, called Future Total Force (FTF). Over the years,
    the ANG has proven its willingness to transform and evolve. However,
    our membership is expressing grave concerns about the direction of the
    FTF plan and its immediate negative impact on Air Guard force
    structure. Such concerns include: continuation of the Air Sovereignty
    missions; funding to transition personnel from current missions to
    ``future missions;'' the limited role that The Adjutants General have
    played in developing the FTF plan; and the impact these force structure
    reductions will have on Air Guard basing in anticipation of BRAC.
        As you and your staff continue holding hearings, NGAUS respectfully
    requests that the House Armed Services Committee conduct a hearing on
    Future Total Force. Should any hearing be scheduled, we respectfully
    request that the National Guard Association of the United States
    (NGAUS) be invited to testify on behalf of the National Guard and its
    membership to outline the Guard perspective in relation to FTF. In
    addition, we offer to coordinate with you and your staff the selection
    of appropriate Adjutants General that could also offer relevant and
    critical testimony.
        The NGAUS recognizes a need for the Air National Guard to remain a
    ready, reliable and relevant component of our total air force
    capability. We also believe it is imperative that any future force
    modernization discussions that impact the Air National Guard involve a
    cooperative and collaborative interaction with the Adjutants General.
                Respectfully,
                                              Stephen M. Koper,
                              Brigadier General, USAF (ret), President.
                                     ______

            Adjutants General Association of the United States,
                                         Washington, DC, March 9, 2005.
    General John P. Jumper,
    Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, HQ USAF/CC, 1670 Air Force
            Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20330-1670.
        Dear General Jumper: The Adjutants General of the 54 states see the
    USAF transformation strategy known as Future Total Force (FTF) having a
    profound effect on the Air National Guard (ANG). We want to help the
    Air Force shape a strategy and force structure that uses the ANG to its
    full potential. Homeland defense is a critical issue for us as we are
    responsible to our Governors for homeland security matters.
        Adjutant General involvement with the FTF initiative only began
    recently with three Adjutants General being invited to participate on
    the AF/XP sponsored General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC).
    Lieutenant General Steve Wood has actively engaged us since coming on
    board late last year. His focus on open exchange of information is
    refreshing and is setting a course that will benefit all.
        From our initial perspective the FTF initiative seems to focus on
    accelerated reductions of current weapon systems located predominately
    in the Air National Guard and the relocation of ANG units to active
    duty bases. The loss of flying units will be compensated by rolling ANG
    force structure into new missions to sustain its end strength. Issues
    exist that could be very detrimental to the National Guard to the point
    of irreversible deterioration. In particular, we fear the initiative as
    we understand it will cause serious gaps in our capability to defend
    the homeland.
        Our concern compels us to ask you to undertake actions to refine
    and improve the FTF initiative. These proposals are necessary to
    preserve the Air National Guard, ensure defense in depth of the
    homeland, and provide the most lethal and cost effective force in the
    future.
        The Adjutants General can add significant value to Air Force
    modernization initiatives. First, we feel we should be involved with
    developing and vetting options, and be given the opportunity to
    contribute data and analysis to various studies. Through our Adjutants
    General Association of the United States (AGAUS) we can offer valuable
    ideas and critiques in a timely manner that will enhance the FTF
    initiative by making it more palatable to a broader range of interested
    parties.
        Second, the Air Force should thoroughly evaluate the air
    sovereignty mission after receiving USNORTHCOM requirements from which
    to develop a realistic force structure plan for homeland defense. The
    evaluation should consider weapon system dispersion as well as
    lethality and determine more precisely the extent other services will
    support this vital mission.
        Third, we want to work with the Air Force to develop a roadmap to
    2025 that uses proportionality as a key principle for determining roles
    and missions for the Air National Guard. This is not to say that
    current proportionality must be strictly adhered to. But rather, it is
    a starting point for determining the best mix of active and reserve
    component forces for future operations. We believe increasing full time
    strength for key weapon systems in the ANG deserves evaluation. The ANG
    may more effectively support critical Air Expedition Force rotations
    and other vital missions with a different mix of full time and
    traditional Guard personnel in units.
        Fourth, the community basing plan should be expanded immediately to
    include additional sites and different weapon systems for a more
    comprehensive evaluation. The Adjutants General believe very strongly
    that community basing is a key to sustaining the relevant and ready Air
    National Guard which has performed so magnificently in homeland defense
    and contingency missions.
        Fifth, to sustain an effective ANG end strength of approximately
    107,000 the FTF schedule must be adjusted to slow aircraft retirements
    while accelerating the assumption of new missions by the ANG to avoid a
    lengthy gap between mission changes during the transitory period. A gap
    will cause the loss of experienced personnel while impeding our
    transition to the Air Force of the Twenty-first Century.
        Sixth, the ANG should field new Air Force aircraft weapon systems
    in ratios consistent with our contribution to the war fight and
    interspersed throughout each system's fielding plan. The nation will be
    well served by involving the Air National Guard early on during the
    fielding F/A-22, C-17, and F-35 weapon systems. This would also apply
    to the new tanker and other flying systems (such as intra-theater lift)
    as they emerge from development. The Adjutants General can provide the
    Air Force valuable support if given a clear picture showing ANG
    participation throughout weapon system fielding.
        The Adjutants General have an obligation to nurture the rich
    heritage of the Air National Guard and ensure its readiness and
    relevance. We have defined several principles that will guide our
    actions in influencing the make up of the future of the Air Force.
        1. Retain the militia basing concept which connects the Air Force
    to communities dispersed throughout the nation and provides for agile
    and quick responses to dispersed threats;
        2. Leverage the cost efficiencies, capabilities, and community
    support generated by ANG units in the several states by including them
    as an integral part of the Future Total Force structure;
        3. Each state needs a baseline force for homeland defense which
    includes civil engineering, medical, and security forces;
        4. The Air National Guard maintains essential proportions of flying
    missions to nurture and sustain direct connectivity with America's
    communities while supporting the expeditionary Air Force cost
    effectively, captures the extensive aircrew and maintenance experience
    of the Air National Guard;
        5. The nation is well served by a continuing dialog involving the
    Air Force, National Guard Bureau, and the Adjutants General as new
    missions emerge and threats change.
        Our desire is to work with the National Guard Bureau in developing,
    vetting, and implementing initiatives. We provide perspectives from the
    field that when aligned with the programmatic expertise of NGB will
    result in sound courses of action with solid support from the several
    states.
        Sir, we truly understand and appreciate your Herculean efforts to
    transform the greatest Air Force in the World into something even
    better. We only ask that we are allowed to help in the process.
                Respectfully,
                                             David P. Rataczak,
      Major General, AZ ARNG, President, Adjutants General Association.

        Senator Bond. Can you, General Blum, give me your
    assessment of the Guard's role in the development of the future
    total force strategy of the Air Force? And I refer to the input
    of the TAGs from States with significant Air Guard assets.
        General Blum. Sir, we cannot pull in a committee of 54 to
    do that, although we have brought senior members of the Air
    Staff, to include the Air Force Vice Chief, General Moseley
    himself, and General Jumper has actually addressed all of the
    TAGs, the adjutants general, on the future total force.
        The problem is there is not great fidelity on the future
    total force because of exactly the process as you talked--
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), BRAC, some other things that
    nobody knows how it is going to shake out yet. So in
    uncertainty there is always discomfort and paranoia.
        I am not ready to say that--I think it bears close watching
    for exactly the reason I said. I cannot have a community-based
    force if we do not have a community base. I think once you lose
    that community base, I cannot think of a place in this country
    where you can open up a new military airport in our lifetime.
    So if you lose that capability, you will never reclaim it.
        I think those things need to be factored in. We have
    engaged with the senior leadership of the Air Force and
    expressed our concerns. We have not been dismissed. They do
    listen to this and they are making adjustments. Now, how it
    will all come out I do not know, but we will watch it very
    closely. And we do have members, representatives, from the
    adjutant generals who are involved in this process, but it is
    clearly the business of the National Guard Bureau to be the
    interface between the Air Force and the States and we will
    discharge our duties.
        Senator Bond. General, I have to--I will say regretfully,
    we are not paranoid. They really are after us. I have heard
    reports about closing of National Guard, Air National Guard
    facilities that I think are absolutely unwarranted in the BRAC
    process and would cause me grave concern about the BRAC process
    if they are not fully engaged.
        I have fought long and hard to get upgraded radars on the
    F-15s because that will make them fully homeland defense
    capable, and I would like to see support for it.
        Let me ask one last thing. Equipment requirements. General,
    can you expand on your pie chart about the Guard equipment
    requirements? What is being done to address the equipment
    shortfalls?
        General Blum. Put up chart 4, please.
        On this part you notice, the part in green are the soldiers
    that are deployed around the world and they are on active duty
    right now in the Army Guard for 18 months. In the Air Guard it
    varies, different times. The average is about 120 days.
        The yellow, the yellow part of the chart, are those that
    are getting ready to replace those in the green sector. The
    part in red is what is available to the Governors of the States
    and territories for homeland defense and support to homeland
    security. We have, as we described earlier, have worked very
    closely with the Governors and the adjutants general to ensure
    that as we call up Army and Air Guard units we leave at least
    50 percent of their capability in the State for command and
    control, maintenance, medical, communications, transportation,
    security, and engineers and other critical skills.
        What I am concerned about is that the Pentagon is very
    willing to resource us adequately, in fact superbly,
    unprecedented equipping of the National Guard for an overseas
    war fight, but when they come home to the Governor of whatever
    State or territory, I do not want them to be without the
    equipment they need to provide the Governor the capabilities
    that that Governor requires in terms of tornadoes, floods,
    hurricanes, or counterterrorist acts or critical infrastructure
    protection missions that may be required in today's
    environment.
        That is where I share some concern that we get adequate
    resources in the red part of that chart.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Generals.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. We thank you very much.
        General Blum, I hope we can find some way to deal with the
    problem that was mentioned about this increment of pay that
    people lose when they are called up. We have had to oppose
    those because there is no ceiling. I think there are some
    people that enter the Guard or Reserve when they are in college
    or first starting out in business, and 10 years later they find
    they are making $1 million a year.
        Now, these amendments say we are going to make up the
    difference. In terms of Government employees, of course, there
    is no million dollars a year, but there are people that are
    paid $175,000, $200,000 in specialty pay in various Government
    agencies and they are in the Reserve or Guard. Now, I think
    there ought to be some limit, upper limit, on what that makeup
    is in that gap between the pay of a person in the service and
    the pay that they are getting performing different skills in
    the civilian branch of Government.
        Doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, a bunch of things, we have
    discretion to pay some people much higher than the normal rate
    of general service.
        So I hope that you will study that and give us some
    recommendations. This has been a bruising fight on this floor
    so far and the amendment that has been passed has no limit. It
    has happened twice before and we have dropped it in conference.
    I do not think that is fair, but I do think that we have to
    have a fair upper limit to what the difference is if we are
    going to pay that automatically when people are called up.
        I hope you will help us find that upper limit. If you can,
    we might come out of this conference with success this year.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Thank you all very much. We appreciate your service and
    your testimony here today.
        [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 Thad Cochran

                            GUARD MOBILIZATION SITES

        Question. General Blum, as the regular Army continues to transform
    to the modular force and garrison space at home stations become more of
    a premium, the use of National Guard facilities will increase as
    reserve component units are mobilized for deployments. Critical to
    mobilization is having the necessary infrastructure to support all
    aspects of mobilization, especially medical screening and training
    facilities.
        Is the Army providing the necessary funding to ensure that key
    mobilization sites are resources to support units preparing to deploy
    in support of the Global War on Terrorism?
        Answer. The Army continues to provide adequate funds to resource
    mobilization sites to ensure our soldiers are receiving the very best
    training possible prior to being deployed in harms way. Typically, Army
    National Guard mobilization site funding requirements are validated by
    their respective Continental U.S. Army and Forces Command
    representatives. After the requirements have been validated, the
    Continental U.S. Army and Forces Command organizations provide the
    approved funding. As we utilize these sites more in the future, we need
    to consider long term Military Construction investments.
        The Army National Guard programmed $284 million in the Future Years
    Defense Plan that will provide facilities such as barracks, maintenance
    facilities, dining facilities, and unit administrative facilities.
    These programmed projects will directly support our mobilizations
    sites. Moreover, we have worked with the Army to establish an
    Operational Readiness Training Complex model to enable our training and
    deployment capabilities of our mobilization sites. The monies we have
    programmed can be indirectly associated with the Operational Readiness
    Training Complex model.

                          RESERVE SOLDIERS EMPLOYMENT

        Question. General Blum, recently there have been several news
    articles citing examples of employers not allowing reserve soldiers
    coming back from deployment to return to their jobs. This is especially
    troubling in light of the debate about the overuse of the reserve
    component, and the challenges with meeting recruiting and retention
    goals.
        How prevalent of a problem is this, and specifically, how many
    soldiers and airmen are being denied their right to return to their
    jobs?
        Answer. There are not a significant number of soldiers and airmen
    who are being denied their rights to return to their jobs at this time.
    The majority of service members return to their place of employment
    with little or no problem. In calendar year 2004, the Nation called
    76,952 Army National Guard and 33,397 Air National Guard men and women
    to federal active duty. Of these, the National Committee for Employer
    Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) show less that 2,100 with
    employment or reemployment incidents that required mediation (1,500 for
    the Army National Guard and 500 for the Air National Guard). That is
    0.02 percent of our mobilized population. Of that group, only 2 percent
    reported being denied the right to return to work. ESGR resolves such
    problem via its Ombudsman Volunteers. Using education and mediation,
    these volunteers resolve 95 percent of all cases. Those that cannot be
    resolved are referred to the Department of Labor for formal
    investigation.
        ESGR is the Department of Defense's outreach agency whose mission
    is to educated employers about their legal requirements under the
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA, U.S.
    Code 38, sections 4301-4334). ESGR also provides free ombudsman
    services to our military members and their employers concerning
    employment and reemployment issues.
        Service Members may also seek remediation of possible USERRA
    violations via the Department of Labor (DOL). In its 2004 report to
    congress, DOL reported a total of 440 cases, for all services,
    specifically concerning a refusal to reinstate or reemploy an
    individual following a period of military service.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities you believe
    would be more helpful then what you currently have?
        Answer. The PS bonus of $15,000 and the reenlistment bonus of
    $15,000 both are working extremely well. The ARNG PS recruiting mission
    YTD is 99.3 percent and the retention mission is at 106 percent of YTD
    mission.
        The following are new authorities that we believe would be helpful
    in meeting our fiscal year 2006 recruiting and retention mission:
      --Increase Enlistment NPS Bonus authority to equal that of Active
            Component;
      --Provide the ARNG with an every Soldier a Recruiter referral bonus
            of $2,500;
      --Provide AC to RC soldiers a one time $15,000 affiliation bonus;
      --Allow RC prior Service soldiers to receive PS Enlistment bonus;
      --Increase MOS conversion bonus from $2,000 to $4,000 and allow
            concurrent receipt of bonus;
      --Allow the RC to offer a separate quick ship bonus;
      --Allow flexibility to offer multiple combinations of reenlistment
            bonus;
      --Allow a variable term retention bonus beyond 16 years of service;
            and
      --Increase Montgomery GI Bill for SELRES to 50 percent of the AC
            benefit.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                             LEFT BEHIND EQUIPMENT

        Question. General Shultz, Mississippi has a proud history of
    contributing to our nation's defense through both the deployment of
    troops and the production of military supplies and equipment. We are
    proud of the 155th Armor Brigade, Mississippi National Guard, which
    deployed to Iraq this past December and January. I understand that many
    reserve component units have redeployed home and left their equipment
    behind for follow-on units.
        Once the 155th Armor Brigade returns from Iraq, will it, along with
    other forces returning home, have the equipment necessary to perform
    future training and missions?
        Answer. The 155th was equipped to deploy with 100 percent of their
    Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) requirements as
    well as additional mission required items. Some of that equipment has
    been designated as Stay Behind Equipment (SBE), equipment that will
    remain in theater to assist follow-on reserve or active component units
    is subsequent missions. The SBE typically consists of the following
    equipment: Armored tactical vehicles, newer versions of small arms/
    electronics and specified specialty equipment.
        The SBE order from the Department of the Army for the 155th has not
    been published. Once published, the SBE order will articulate the time
    the equipment is expected to remain in theater. Historically, this can
    range from one year to an undisclosed period of time (end of
    hostilities). Assuming the $2.94 billion fiscal year 2006 Army National
    Guard Supplemental is approved, additional items will be fielded to the
    155th Brigade Combat Team in accordance with production and Army
    policies calling for S-3 (approximately 70 percent) at conversion/
    employment date and S-1 (approximately 90 percent) at employment date
    plus 24 months. Additional equipment may be funded by other sources.
        Any of that equipment subsequently not deployed (identified as not
    required for the specific mission or available in theater as SBE from
    the unit relieved, such as armored vehicles) was left in CONUS or
    returned from theater without use.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Daniel James, III
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                              RECRUITING/RETENTION

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities that you
    believe would be more helpful then what you currently have?
        Answer. The Reserve Component cash bonuses are our most effective
    incentives in today's difficult recruiting and retention environment,
    and the increase in bonus authorities authorized by the Fiscal Year
    2005 National Defense Authorization Act are a big reason for our
    success. However, there are two incentives that we believe could be
    improved to be even more effective. We feel the retraining bonus will
    be critical as we attempt to retain as many members as possible through
    Future Total Force and Base Realignment and Closure. We will be asking
    thousands of members to move and/or retrain and, the current $2,000
    retraining bonus is not a sufficient incentive to ask them to do that.
    We would like to see the retraining bonus increased to $10,000. In
    addition, the reserve affiliation bonus of $50 per month for every
    month remaining on a member's military service obligation, has not
    changed since the late 1980's, while all other incentive programs have
    increased substantially. We would like to see the reserve affiliation
    bonus increased to at least $10,000, to make it a more viable
    recruiting tool for these fully qualified prior service members who
    save us millions in training dollars.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                              AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

        Question. General James, I have been informed that the Air National
    Guard has the critical mission of air traffic control in operational
    theaters. I have also been told that the equipment the air traffic
    controllers' use was developed long before many of them was born. Could
    you describe to this committee the efforts the Air Force is taking to
    modernize tactical air traffic control systems for the Air Force and
    the Air Guard? Is the Air Guard making use of the Mobile Approach
    Control System?
        Answer. The primary Air Force deployable Air Traffic Control
    Systems (ATCALS) are the TPN-19 and the MPN-14K. These systems include
    an airport surveillance radar, precision approach radar and operations
    center. The Active Duty Air Force is currently using the TPN-19 and the
    Air National Guard is using the MPN-14K. The MPN-14K was designed and
    purchased in the late 1950s while the TPN-19 was designed and purchased
    in the early 1970s. Both systems have already exceeded their expected
    life-cycle and are reaching unsupportable levels. The Air Force has an
    on-going acquisition program to replace these systems called the Mobile
    Approach Control System (MACS).
        The Air Force has defined a requirement to purchase 18 systems for
    both the Active Duty and Air National Guard. To date, two test units
    and three pre-production systems have been procured. These systems will
    support developmental testing at Duke Field, Florida this summer and
    operational testing in early 2006 at Shaw AFB, South Carolina.
    Additionally, these pre-production units will support training for
    maintenance personnel and air traffic control operators. The remaining
    13 MACS systems will be procured after completion of the operational
    testing. Using these systems, an initial operational capability is
    planned in 2007.
        Funding for the remaining 13 systems was not within the Air Force
    fiscal year 2006 budget. However, the high operations tempo and
    increased use of tactical radar systems to support Operation Enduring
    Freedom and Iraqi Freedom resulted in MACS being elevated to number
    four on the Air Force's fiscal year 2006 Unfunded Priority List. The
    current shortfall is $121 million.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Question. General James, Future Total Force (FTF), as currently
    proposed by the Air Force, presents a significant challenge to our
    citizen-airmen because it disproportionably impacts the Air National
    Guard. Currently, the Air National Guard maintains at least one flying
    unit in every state. This structure is a vital component to homeland
    defense. How do you propose securing our homeland or responding to a
    major disaster when no units are available to our Governors because FTF
    has removed them?
        Answer. We recognize the fact that a preponderance of legacy
    aircraft reside in the Air National Guard (ANG) and are now working
    with the Air Force to ensure that the Future Total Force vision does
    not simply mean taking flying missions away from the Air National Guard
    without a viable, meaningful mission to replace it whether it is
    existing legacy aircraft or new emerging missions. We are making every
    effort to work with the Air Force to ensure that we ``bridge the gap''
    between our divestiture of legacy systems and our stand-up of these new
    and emerging missions.
        In fact, we want to ensure that we retain one of our most valuable
    assets--our high experience base. There will be some changes, but we
    will continue to work with the Air Force to make sure that we minimize
    the loss of the valuable experience resident in the Air National Guard.
    From our perspective, one of the most exciting changes underway is the
    ``Community Basing'' concept test in Vermont recently approved for
    implementation by the CSAF and SECAF.
        The Community Basing concept should provide us with a model that we
    can expand to other guard locations. By placing active duty personnel
    at Air National Guard locations, we can take full advantage of the
    experience that resides in the Air Guard and increase our utilization
    across the entire Total Force. As this concept matures, we will be able
    to maintain a dispersion of our ANG forces with their inherent
    Expeditionary Combat Support capability that can be dual-used for
    defense of the homeland and to meet Combatant Commander requirements.
    Our role in defense of the homeland doesn't include just Air
    Sovereignty Alert; we maintain a vast skills base in Expeditionary
    Medical Support to Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and High-
    yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs), Civil
    Support Teams, secure communications, fire fighting, etc. The Community
    Basing concept is a Future Total Force vehicle that will allow us to
    keep these dual-use skills where they are needed.
        Question. Under the Future Total Force plan, there appears to be a
    significant time lapse between when airframes are removed from a unit,
    and when that same unit would receive a follow-on mission. What do you
    propose to do with those airmen in that timeframe? How are you working
    with the Air Force to solve this problem?
        Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) agrees that the need exists to
    modernize our force structure and bring online new and emerging
    missions. We are making every effort to work with the Air Force to
    ensure that we ``bridge the gap'' between our divestiture of legacy
    systems and our stand-up of these new and emerging missions. Our
    greatest concern, as you have noted, is ending up in a position where
    we have transferred out of a system prematurely, thereby losing our
    most valuable asset--our experienced guardsmen. As we move forward we
    will continue to keep a watchful eye on the training pipelines for
    these new roles and ensure our guardsmen have adequate access to
    training. In addition, we are working with the Air Force to identify
    adequate resourcing for these new and emerging mission areas. We will
    make every effort to ensure our future guardsmen are equipped and
    trained for their new role.
        Because we await the basing decisions of BRAC 2005, we cannot
    predict with any certainty which units will get which missions, but as
    soon as the BRAC announcements are made, please be assured that the Air
    National Guard will work with the Air Force to make any ANG unit
    transition, if deemed necessary, as smooth as possible.

                                  RECRUITMENT

        Question. Recruitment for the National Guard is down. Would you
    agree that removing units from states, therefore forcing Guardsmen to
    travel long distances for drill weekends, will only hurt recruitment?
    Do you have any plan as to how you will combat this problem?
        Answer. Yes, recruiting is currently down in the Air National
    Guard, specifically Non-prior service (NPS) recruiting.
        We do understand that removing units from states will not only
    affect recruiting, but retention as well. As we transition through
    Future Total Force and Base Realignment and Closure, we will be asking
    our members to move, retrain into another career field, or leave
    earlier than expected. We do anticipate some unexpected losses, thus
    having to recruit to these losses. However, we must move forward with
    these transitions to new missions to not only remain relevant, but to
    also support the war fighter of the future.
        Our plan to combat this potential problem is to use all the
    personnel force management tools available, to include incentives,
    transition authorities, and training opportunities. Additionally,
    leadership will undoubtedly play a large role in the transition to new
    missions. We will continue to take great care of our members, as we
    have in the past. We have always had one of the best retention rates
    and plan to keep it that way.

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Question. It is my understanding that the Guard will lose 60
    percent of their airframes due to the newer F-22 and JSF coming on-
    line. In the past, both the Air Force and Guard leadership have stated
    that due to FTF, end strength won't be reduced. However, if there are
    fewer planes, and therefore less flight time for the same amount of
    Guard personnel, what will these Guardsmen being doing? Do you really
    believe a trained pilot or maintainer would happily take a desk job?
        Answer. We recognize the fact that a preponderance of legacy
    aircraft reside in the Air National Guard (ANG) and are now working
    with the Air Force to ensure that the Future Total Force vision does
    not simply mean taking flying missions away from the Air National Guard
    without a viable, meaningful mission to replace it. As previously
    stated, we are making every effort to work with the Air Force to ensure
    that we ``bridge the gap'' between our divestiture of legacy systems
    and our stand-up of these new and emerging missions. As we move forward
    we need to continue to keep a watchful eye on the training pipelines
    for these new roles and ensure our guardsmen have adequate access to
    training. In addition, we are working with the Air Force to identify
    adequate resourcing for these new and emerging mission areas. Through
    the addition of new and emerging missions, as well as, the increased
    crew ratios and new organizational constructs, we believe all of our
    guardsmen will be key players in relevant missions well into the
    future.
        To remain a key part of the Air Expeditionary Force and provide for
    the Air Defense of the Homeland, it will be necessary for the United
    States Air Force to continue cascading existing modern aircraft and
    ensure the Air National Guard is also participant in new aircraft.
        There will be some changes, but we will continue to work with the
    Air Force to make sure that we minimize the loss of the valuable
    experience resident in the Air National Guard. From our perspective,
    one of the most exciting changes underway is the ``Community Basing''
    concept test in Vermont recently approved for implementation by the
    CSAF and SECAF.
        The Community Basing concept should provide us with a model that we
    can expand to other guard locations. By placing active duty personnel
    at Air National Guard locations, we can take full advantage of the
    experience that resides in the Air Guard and increase our utilization
    across the entire Total Force.

                                    Reserves

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF
                AND COMMANDER, ARMY RESERVES, UNITED STATES
                ARMY
        Senator Stevens. Let us now hear from the commanders of the
    Reserve forces: Lieutenant General James Helmly, Chief of the
    Army Reserve; Vice Admiral John Cotton, the Chief of the Naval
    Reserve; General Dennis McCarthy, Commander of the Marine Force
    Reserve; and Lieutenant General John Bradley, Chief of the Air
    Force Reserve.
        We welcome you, gentlemen. General Bradley, you are making
    your first appearance before the subcommittee. We welcome you
    and look forward to hearing from you. We also acknowledge,
    General McCarthy, that this is your last statement before us. I
    understand you have had 38 years in the Marine Corps and we
    wish you the best for the future.
        I must say to you, you have seen the subcommittee has sort
    of disappeared. They are on the floor and there are several
    amendments pending, as I have said before, that affect this
    panel and this hearing. But I do wish to have your statements.
        By the way, all the statements that are presented today by
    the general officers will appear in the record as though read.
        I welcome whatever statements you all would like to make
    here this morning. I do not know whether any of my colleagues
    will come back. I may be called to the floor to vote before you
    are finished. But let me ask, who will open this? General
    Helmly.
        General Helmly. Sir, the Army is the senior service. We
    will be happy to oblige.
        Sir, I am Ron Helmly. I am an American soldier and it is
    with great professional pride and personal humility that I come
    before you today to discuss the posture of our Army Reserve
    with my fellow chiefs of Reserve components. Let me state first
    that I am proud to be in their company as well.
        One thing. While we are, as was noted earlier,
    institutionally charged in law separately, funded separately,
    and we do different things for our services, the facts are that
    we are blessed with an exceptionally strong joint team, not
    only across the components but also across the services. So it
    is a distinct privilege for me to serve with these gentlemen to
    my left.
        I am also privileged this morning to introduce two of our
    soldiers: Captain Damon A. Garner and Sergeant First Class
    James J. Martin. They represent the centerpiece of our
    formation across all components of our services, our people,
    our uniformed members and in turn their families, and our
    civilian employees.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I look forward to your questions during the course of the
    hearing. Thank you for allowing us to be with you this morning.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James R. Helmly

        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, to fill the needs of the armed forces
    whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular
    components.''----Title 10 USC, subsection 10102
        ``. . . The Army isn't just an ordinary institution, it's a great
    institution with an unparalleled set of enduring core values, a long,
    rich tradition, and a demonstrated ability to change and adapt to new
    situations . . . We must . . . develop a future force that is better
    able to meet the challenge of our security environment by transforming
    the way the Army fights and the way it does business . . . We will keep
    the best of the past, while transforming to be better able to meet the
    challenge of the future.''----Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey,
    Welcome Ceremony, December 6, 2004

                      RECOGNIZING THE NECESSITY FOR CHANGE

    Dual Missions for Citizen-Warriors
        We are your Army Reserve. We are waging two battles simultaneously.
    First, we are 205,000 Citizen-Soldiers, serving with our Army at war,
    an integral and complementary part of our Army's capabilities,
    decisively engaged with the Army in joint and expeditionary operations
    around the world. In all, about 130,000 Army Reserve Soldiers have
    served on active duty since 2001, waging the Global War on Terror, and
    deploying in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and
    Iraqi Freedom. We are an integral component of the world's best army,
    complementing the joint force with skill-rich capabilities.
    Simultaneously, we are an Army Reserve decisively engaged in the
    process of change, transforming itself to better meet the challenges of
    the 21st century and beyond. We are reinventing ourselves as Warriors
    even as we fight the war. The change is essential and profound, of a
    scope unprecedented in our history.

    A Smaller Army: an Army Reserve Refocusing
        After nearly 50 years of Cold War and a victory, our Armed Forces
    were reduced in size--our active duty Armed Forces by 33 percent; our
    Army Reserve force by 36 percent. Throughout these reductions, The Army
    essentially remained a smaller version of its Cold-War self, still
    oriented on large-scale, maneuver warfare appropriate to a campaign in
    the Fulda Gap and to Armageddon on the plains of Germany. Post-Cold War
    campaigns taught us that the wars of the 21st century would be a
    different item altogether. Future, regional conflicts would not be
    fought on open plains, by superpowers' massed armored formations, but
    by smaller units maneuvering their way though devastated urban areas
    and congested villages of the third world. Local warlords and strongmen
    with private militias would replace regular forces as adversaries.
    Speed, mobility, agility, and the correlation of forces became
    ascendant military virtues. An expeditionary force (Active and Reserve)
    would be the weapon of necessity to fight our country's battles, while
    essentially retaining campaign qualities. The roles of intelligence,
    special operations, psychological operations, and civil affairs forces
    were moving to center stage and beginning to expand and proliferate.
    Moreover, the fact that after Operations Desert Shield/Storm, Reserve
    component support had leveled off and was maintaining a steady-state of
    about 12.5 million mandays per year (up from an average of less than a
    million mandays per year in the mid-eighties), raised some very
    interesting issues about overall force balance for Total Force
    planners. Things were changing profoundly, indeed.
        During this period, the Army Reserve, reacting to these reductions
    realigned its internal command and control structure. Smaller commands
    were folded into one another wherever possible to increase command
    efficiency and reduce the size of the force structure. Command
    boundaries were redrawn and aligned with existing federal
    administrative regions to improve emergency planning, coordination, and
    response. Economies of scale and focus were achieved, while enhancing
    responsiveness and flexibility. All of this took place before September
    11, 2001. Then the world changed.
    Filled With a Terrible Resolve
        In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, came the Global War
    on Terror, and Operations Enduring Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
    Freedom. The reduced Army and its smaller Reserve components were at
    war, and the system was being stressed. The need to change radically
    the operational paradigms of the Army and its Reserve components became
    ever more apparent. The Army leadership embarked on an ambitious and
    far-reaching program of change intended to redefine, realign,
    rebalance, and refocus the force to meet the new realities of the 21st
    century and beyond. The focus and expectations had changed because the
    realities of war had changed.
        In a time of war when there were no secure rear areas, the Army's
    Chief of Staff declared that every Soldier would be a rifleman, a
    Warrior. The twenty-first century Reserve Soldier would become a new
    model Citizen-Warrior, who, though he would remain a citizen first and
    foremost, would always be a Warrior. Operations Enduring Freedom and
    Iraqi Freedom tested the mettle of these Warriors.
        At the same time, long-accepted Cold-War planning assumptions and
    expectations concerning duration of operations required continuous
    adjustment and recalculation to accommodate a period in which offensive
    operations had widely ceased, but in which counter-insurgency, combat,
    pacification and stability intermeshed in high tempo. Rotation
    timetables and troop levels were subject to frequent adjustments.
    Predictability was becoming a morale issue, and the potential adequacy
    of available troop levels was also being questioned in light of
    foreseen and developing strength management shortfalls. The problem was
    institutional.
        The management problems that were emerging were clearly tied to
    obsolete, Cold-War models, based upon legacy force structure, personnel
    management and policy, and operational responses to unconventional and
    asymmetrical military threats. The key to meeting this challenge would
    have to be the development of a coherent and integrated plan that would
    change Army Reserve force structure, manpower planning training,
    equipping, and employment policies, and merge the results into an
    entirely new approach to future combat operations. Transformation and
    change were recognized not as processes separate from fighting the war
    on terror, but as necessary preconditions to successfully waging the
    war. Change became a strategic imperative.

                           EMBRACING PROFOUND CHANGE

    A Catalyst for Change
        The Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative (FRRI).--In 2003, the
    Army Reserve, having assessed its organization and many of its legacy
    management policies, began implementing the FRRI, an integrated
    structural and manpower reorganization program that would realign force
    structure, and focus assets, resources, and policies on improving
    wartime readiness rather than peacetime, organizational-support
    missions. The project was an ambitious one that sought to remedy a
    hollow force and its inherent lack of readiness; build rotational depth
    into the force; create a command and control system that produced
    active duty-ready Soldiers and units; and established Soldier lifecycle
    management. It realigned support commands to focus their efforts on
    mobilization readiness rather than peacetime operations. It introduced
    a Reserve human resources lifecycle management system that offered
    personalized, centralized management, scheduled professional
    development education, facilitated assignments among all portions of
    the Selected Reserve. It developed leaders, and fully manned and
    resourced the Reserve structure. In sum, the FRRI prepared the way for
    many personnel and force management features that support change and
    the Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF).
    Mobilization Issues
        One other issue that the FRRI addressed was the mobilization
    system. During the Cold War, mobilized Army Reserve units were
    typically sequenced to flow in a prescribed order at a modest readiness
    level. Preparation and qualification time were built into an alert-
    mobilize-train-deploy model, that was linear and rigidly sequential in
    nature. This system protected unit integrity and presupposed extensive
    post-mobilization training and that unit sets of mission-essential
    equipment would also be issued after mobilization. The old system also
    provided predictability in the process and a minimum of 30+ days from
    alert to mobilization. Partial mobilization authority allowed for a
    full year or more of employment in theater.
        During the Bosnia and Kosovo period, Presidential Selected Reserve
    call-up authority was used to call up smaller numbers of Soldiers in
    accordance with the old model. However, because total Army Reserve
    requirements were relatively modest, we did not reach deep into the
    force and exhaust any one set of skill capabilities. The old system
    held up--for the time being.
    Even as We Speak
        Current mobilization practice (the new model) is built around
    combatant commanders' requests for forces (RFF) and deployment orders
    (DEPORDs). Typically RFFs could consist of as little as one Soldier or
    range up to an entire unit. (Fifty-two percent of the Army Reserve's
    mobilizations under OEF and OIF have been for 6 Soldiers or less.)
    Typically, multiple RFFs are made and each element is placed on alert.
    Some have received short-fused DEPORDs in as few as a couple of days,
    while other elements have been left on alert awaiting orders for
    months. There has been little predictability in the process as required
    forces have been deployed from virtually anywhere on our troop list. A
    much higher deployment criterion was regularly called for, and this
    required the Army Reserve to perform extensive reassignment of Soldiers
    and realignment of equipment. Today, on average, 35 percent of the
    Soldiers in a deploying unit are reassigned from elsewhere. This has
    presented us with an extremely difficult challenge--manage the current
    mobilization process to keep it from breaking the readiness of not-yet-
    alerted units. These remaining units will be needed later in the
    warfight and, if ``cherry-picked,'' will not be able to reach
    deployment standards themselves without additional personnel
    reassignments.

                         TOWARD AN EXPEDITIONARY FUTURE

    The Army Reserve Rotational Concept and the AREF
        The centerpiece of the Army Reserve's change to the future is its
    expeditionary force packages, an integrated rotational model that grows
    out of the Army's efforts to transform itself and restructure its
    forces to remain relevant and responsive in an era of uncertainty and
    change.

        The Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF) synchronizes Army
    Reserve structures, programs, and operations to sustain responsive,
    effective and available support of the Army mission. The AREF is a
    major institutional response to the changing nature of war, and a
    significant departure from historical Army mobilization and management
    models that had not contemplated sustained Reserve deployments as an
    essential feature of military campaigns. It supports the Army's concept
    of modularity, and the brigade combat teams that are organized under
    that concept to be more readily deployable and more capable of meeting
    combatant commanders' needs. The AREF is intended to make the Army
    Reserve's provision of campaign quality combat support and combat
    service support forces to the combatant commanders more sustainable.
    AREF: the Lynchpin of Army Reserve Readiness
        In August 2003, the Army Reserve, building upon the Federal Reserve
    Restructuring Initiative, and Active component expeditionary
    structures, began to refine and implement a complementary expeditionary
    support force concept. The Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF),
    which itself reflects and complements Active component management
    models, provides available and ready Army Reserve Soldiers, and
    synchronizes Army Reserve equipping and training cycles to develop and
    sustain the readiness of Reserve component forces required to support
    Active Army formations, readiness, and operations.
        The Global War on Terror was as much as any other single factor,
    responsible for the development of the Army's expeditionary force
    concept and its Army Reserve counterpart, the AREF. The protracted
    nature of the GWOT as well as the heavy investment in equipment
    required to carry it out, mandated that certain planning factors had to
    be addressed for the long term if the war on terror was to be waged
    successfully. The expeditionary force concept is a solution to that
    problem. It allows a force of limited size to sustain a campaign for a
    long, if not indefinite period, by cycling its limited, though
    renewable, assets and resources through a synchronized, progressive,
    and focused schedule of deployments, engagements, and regeneration,
    refit, and retraining to achieve serial, selective readiness.
        When we speak of assets and resources, we mean the personnel,
    equipment, and training needed for units to be campaign-ready when
    required for a predetermined period. In this case, we mean an
    institutional goal of units capable of deploying to the theater of
    operations for 9 months on 120 hours' notice every 5 years. We must
    generate the force; equip the force; and train the force to achieve
    adequate campaign readiness. We are focusing our efforts and assets on
    these areas in turn as the constituent units of the AREF move through
    their service cycles.
        The Army Reserve will provide units supporting Army Expeditionary
    Force Packages (AREP), consisting of trained and progressively
    mobilization-ready forces. The first two expeditionary packages (AREP)
    are expected to be ready for deployment in the fall of 2005. Army
    Reserve expeditionary packages will contain a number of units, each of
    which will move through a progressive readiness cycle. In a steady
    state, each Army Reserve expeditionary package has a planned activation
    period of 270 days to capitalize on the Presidential Reserve call-up
    with 6-7 months' ``boots on the ground.'' The goal is a package
    rotation of one deployment in five years. Our analysis indicates that
    single-package availability to the combatant commands is sustainable
    over an indefinite period of time. In a surge state, the Army Reserve
    can make available up to 4 packages (roughly 40 percent of our force)
    for a limited period. Based on surveys from both in-theater and
    recently returned Soldiers, the Army Reserve believes this new strategy
    is sustainable over the long term. ``Transformation and change were
    recognized not as processes separate from fighting the war on terror,
    but as necessary preconditions to successfully waging the war.''
        The benefits of these new training and equipping strategies to the
    Army are many. Most notably, they allow the Army Reserve to provide
    fully trained and equipped units and Soldiers, while reducing the need
    to reassign personnel and equipment upon receipt of mobilization
    orders. These strategies also position the Army Reserve for
    transformation to support the modular force structure of the Army.

                              GENERATING THE FORCE

    The New Force
        The all-volunteer Army is required by its nature to constantly
    regenerate itself quantitatively and qualitatively if it is to survive.
    As with any living entity, it must change to accommodate external
    forces and events that impinge upon it and its mission. In the face of
    external change, the Army Reserve is restructuring its forces and
    rebalancing its skill inventories to support the Army Reserve
    Expeditionary Force. It also seeks to provide sustainability and
    predictability in mobilization and utilization of Reserve forces (while
    avoiding wholesale cross-leveling and its inevitable results). At the
    same time, we want to improve management efficiency, and focus training
    on skills and specialties required by the combatant commanders. These
    force-generation changes mirror similar major initiatives throughout
    the rest of the Army. Because they are being pursued concurrently while
    we are at war, they are complex, intricate, time-consuming, and
    dynamic; but once completed, they will enable us to remain engaged as
    an integral, complementary, participant in an expeditionary army with
    campaign qualities. As we noted earlier, they are an essential
    precondition to winning the war on terror.
    Restructuring the Force
        Significant changes originally undertaken as a part of the Federal
    Reserve Restructuring Initiative remain central to the Army Reserve's
    strategic vision for regenerating and transforming its command and
    control force structure. In keeping with the National Defense Strategy,
    the National Military Strategy, OSD's comprehensive review of Reserve
    Component Contributions to National Defense, and the strategic global
    military environment, these changes provide the basis and rationale for
    moving from the older Army Reserve regional support commands, to
    operationally deployable commands. Peacetime command and control has
    been replaced with wartime readiness.
    Optimizing the Force
        The Army Reserve's Citizen-Soldiers have been continuously
    mobilized since 1995. Prior to September 11th, the annual manday usage
    for the Reserve components had leveled off at a steady state of about
    12.5 million per year (the equivalent of more that two traditional Army
    divisions). From the very beginning of the Global War on Terror, we
    have known that it would be a long war that had to be sustainable in
    order to be won. Because many of our military formations were
    misaligned to meet the current threat, our legacy force structure was
    being stressed in ways that we had not anticipated by missions that we
    had not contemplated (or if we did envision them, we did not foresee
    the degree and frequency to which they now occurred). This was
    particularly true in some military specialties that were assigned
    entirely or nearly so to the Reserve components. Military police,
    transportation, petroleum and water distribution, civil affairs and
    psychological operations units were among those finding themselves
    spread thin by heavier-than-anticipated demands for their specialized
    support services. They had been aligned for a different war than we
    were now fighting, a war based on a whole other set of operational
    assumptions that were no longer useful and functional. As a result,
    these units were experiencing sufficient stress to potentially
    challenge our ability to sustain the long push needed to bring the
    second Gulf War and the Global War on Terror to successful conclusions.

        Based upon an analysis ordered by the Secretary of Defense, the
    military services undertook a comprehensive assessment of their forces
    and components, seeking ways to relieve the stress on certain high-
    demand-low-density units, particularly those that are found primarily
    in the Reserve components. ``Optimizing'' is intended to refocus Total
    Army assets on current and emerging missions. It will allow us to trim
    away low-demand force structure and convert it to directly usable
    forces to meet missions that would otherwise require more frequent
    repetitive mobilizations and deployments. More than 100,000 Active,
    Army National Guard, and Army Reserve spaces have been earmarked for
    restructuring and in some cases elimination between 2004 and 2011 as
    Cold-War over-structure. Specifically, the intent of optimizing is to
      --Develop a flexible, modular force structure with a proper force mix
            and depth to sustain homeland defense, major combat operations,
            smaller-scale contingencies, stability operations, and other
            requirements of our defense strategy.
      --Optimize the Army's ability to respond with a predominantly AC
            force within the first 15 days of an operation and ensure
            sufficient AC-RC force structure depth to sustain and support
            both operational rotations and contingencies.
      --Develop plans to fully man Active and Reserve component units and
            improve the readiness of all our formations.
      --Resource high-demand unit requirements by eliminating less-utilized
            force structure and capabilities.
        Optimizing paves the path to modularity, stability, and
    predictability. It successfully regenerates and restructures the force,
    creating a flexible, modular Army Reserve that provides stability and
    predictability for our Soldiers, their families, communities and
    employers. This initiative will result in a rapid and responsive,
    campaign-quality Army, while maintaining the depth necessary to meet
    any threat across the full spectrum of conflict. We will eliminate
    unnecessary Cold-War over-structure to pay the bill; there will be no
    reduction in the number of Soldiers. Sustained operations will be the
    norm for the future, so we must optimize our capabilities to meet this
    reality.
        Our formations must be relevant to the defense and military
    strategies--modular, interoperable, and agile. They will optimize our
    capabilities and sustainability by expanding in specialties that are
    most in demand. We remain convinced that manning our forces at 100
    percent will increase readiness and reduce turbulence for Soldiers and
    their units. We further believe that building rotational-based, modular
    force packages will provide predictability and sustainability for
    Soldiers in the Army Reserve.
    The Army Modular Force
        Closely aligned to these force structure changes is the issue of
    the Army Modular Force. The Army has historically favored mobilizing
    its assets as discrete units. This practice helps ensure unit
    efficiency and morale as well as effectiveness by allowing Soldiers who
    have trained and worked together to be mobilized and to serve together.
    One of the lessons of the campaigns of the last 15 years is that our
    traditional NATO/Cold-War divisional structure is no longer optimal for
    the nature of the wars we are now fighting. Expeditionary formations
    must be smaller, more adaptable, and provide combatant commanders
    greater flexibility when they task organize their forces to meet
    emerging threats and evolving situations. The intent is to develop
    interchangeable units (modules) that can be assigned with a minimum of
    cross-leveling of assets, across a spectrum of task-organized forces in
    what the Army calls its ``plug and play'' mode. All of the components
    of the Army share this organizational imperative. The Army Reserve is
    incorporating this principle in its restructuring and rebalancing
    initiatives, and has allocated 30,000 spaces to support modularization
    of its force.

                      FORCE GENERATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

    The Test
        When we discuss ``generating the force,'' we address issues that
    range from recruiting and retention and the tools associated with those
    functions, to the broader topic of human resource management and its
    supporting programs and policies. Ultimately, the issue is people--
    attracting, retaining, and managing the best, most motivated and
    qualified people and Soldiers we can to make up our Army and its Army
    Reserve.
        The Global War on Terror is the first real test of our all-
    volunteer force. It will sorely try the soul of our Armed Forces and
    our ability to recruit, retain, and manage the human resources we need
    to defend ourselves and our interests over time.

    Recruiting and Retention
        The Army Reserve has been working very hard to meet its programmed
    manpower goals. The challenges that we face in this area have caused us
    to reconsider our historic approach to manpower recruiting and
    management. We recognized the need to take more active steps toward
    meeting our Soldiers' needs and structuring their careers. While our
    level of success in this endeavor remains to be seen, the array of
    initiatives and incentives to service that we have developed with the
    help of the Army and the Congress bodes well for the future. Among
    these initiatives are the following:
      --Expanded Recruiting Force--we have reassigned 734 more Active Guard
            and Reserve (AGR) NCOs to the USAR recruiting force. This
            brings our recruiting force total to nearly 1,800.
      --Incentives--During the preparation of the fiscal year 2005 National
            Defense Authorization Act, we worked closely with members of
            the congressional oversight committees to improve the
            attractiveness of the Selective Reserve Incentive Program,
            enhance prior-service enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, and
            establish a $6,000 officer accession bonus.
      --For our own part, we have moved aggressively to
        --Realign Individual Ready Reserve and troop program unit mission
                responsibilities to increase retention.
        --Place 49 recruiting NCOs at transition points to work with
                Soldiers leaving the Active Army and help them find units
                to continue serving the nation.
        --Resource the start-up costs for the 734 new AGR recruiters.
        --Realign funding to support increased bonuses and program
                enhancements.
        --Increase funding support for national and local advertising.
    Officer Recruiting
        Currently, Army Reserve troop program units reflect a shortage of
    company grade officers. The Army is taking the following actions to
    remedy this shortfall:
      --We have increased officer accessions into the Army Reserve. U.S.
            Army Cadet Command now has a formal mission for Reserve
            Officers Training Corps (ROTC) for 670 cadets a year. In
            February 2005, we also implemented the officer accession and
            affiliation bonuses that were authorized in the fiscal year
            2005 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These tools
            will enable us to attract more officers to serve in the Army
            Reserve and will help us with our accession mission.
      --We have implemented the Army Reserve Green to Gold pilot program
            and plans are being made for its expansion. The Green to Gold
            program, which began at the University of Pittsburgh and now
            has been expanded to six universities, is managed by the 80th
            War Division (institutional training). Army Reserve-wide there
            are approximately 35,000 enlisted service members who meet
            minimum requirements for appointment as commissioned officers.
      --Active component and National Guard officer candidate schools
            remain a strong venue for appointment of company grade
            officers.
      --Direct appointment remains a strong commissioning source.
      --The Army has also implemented several initiatives that will greatly
            improve the retention of our junior officers. Some of the
            initiatives include: (1) We've increased the number of officer
            basic course training seats and are reducing the time it takes
            for a reserve officer to get to training; (2) we are now
            assigning newly commissioned officers directly to a troop unit
            rather than to the Individual Ready Reserve; (3) we've
            streamlined promotions to first lieutenant and changed
            promotion policy for centralized promotion boards. These
            changes will enable us to increase retention while improving
            readiness.
    Medical Officer Recruiting
        The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) continues to be mindful of the
    challenges to the recruiting of medical professionals. We have taken
    active steps to address challenges and will continue to monitor these
    numbers to determine if additional changes are required. One of the
    most frequently cited barriers to effective AMEDD recruiting is
    repeated mobilizations. To address this we have implemented the 90-day
    boots-on-the-ground program for many critical, hard-to-recruit medical
    positions This change, which allows shorter deployments, was developed
    from input from our Reserve component AMEDD personnel, and today we
    believe it is successful. However, we will continue to monitor these
    types of challenges to ensure we maintain a ready force and will
    continue to work with AMEDD recruiters to develop initiatives tailored
    to meet current and emerging requirements.
    Individual Augmentation Program
        One of the significant force-generation challenges the Army Reserve
    faces is the large number of taskings to provide the Army with
    individual Soldiers, or small, nontask-organized groups of individuals
    to fill specific individual mobilization requirements. To fill these
    requests, the Army Reserve has typically had to mobilize groups of six
    or less Soldiers, making personnel tracking and accountability
    extremely difficult. To re-engineer and streamline the individual
    mobilization process and improve accountability, we established the
    United States Army Reserve Command Augmentation Unit (UAU) as a holding
    element for individual mobilized Soldiers.
        Soldiers living in areas without a unit that supports their MOS or
    grade may be assigned to the UAU and attached to a troop unit near
    their home of record for training. Individual Augmentees may also
    support force generation requirements by being temporarily attached to
    fill critical MOS/grade shortfalls in mobilizing Army Reserve units.
        Currently there are more than 7,500 Army Reserve Soldiers
    registered in the IA Program Volunteer database.
        Since October 2003, the IA Program has provided approximately 1,200
    volunteers to fill individual augmentee mobilizations, replacement
    operations, World-wide Individual Augmentee System requirements, or be
    cross-leveled to fill critical military occupational specialties in
    deploying units.
    Full-Time Support
        The Army Reserve is a full partner in Army transformation, the
    Global War on Terror, and support for ongoing strategic operations in
    Iraq and other parts of the world. Full-time support (FTS) levels
    directly affect all facets of force generation and unit readiness--
    personnel, training, and equipment--by providing the core expertise and
    continuity required to effectively prepare for and efficiently
    transition to war. The Congress has long recognized that adequate
    levels of full-time support, both Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and
    military technicians (MILTECHs), are essential for units to attain and
    maintain the heightened levels of mobilization readiness demanded the
    Global War on Terror and ongoing strategic operations.
        The current FTS ramps for AGRs and MILTECHs, established in January
    2001 by the Army, in cooperation with the Army Reserve and the Army
    National Guard, were designed to gradually achieve minimum essential
    resource levels (73 percent of requirements) in support of RC unit
    readiness.
        The Army Reserve historically has had the lowest FTS percentage of
    any DOD Reserve component, including the Army National Guard, and this
    will still be the case when the current approved ramps reach end-state
    in fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2005 DOD average FTS manning level
    is 21 percent of end strength, while the fiscal year 2005 total for the
    Army Reserve is 11.3 percent.
        In fiscal year 2005, the Army Reserve was tasked with additional
    FTS mission requirements above and beyond programmed requirements,
    including:
      --Replacing 223 Active component training advisers (Title 11) to the
            Reserve components who will be reassigned to support Active
            component missions.
      --Providing U.S. Army Recruiting Command 734 additional recruiters
            for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.
        In cooperation with the Department of the Army, the Army's Reserve
    components are revalidating their FTS requirements to ensure that
    existing FTS models and support structure remain relevant to current
    missions and the needs of the Soldier. We expect that, as a result of
    this effort, requirements may increase, not decrease. It is imperative
    that the programmed resourcing of full-time support not only be
    maintained, but increased, as the Army Reserve restructures to move to
    a more ready, campaign-capable, and accessible future force.

                       FORCE GENERATION SUPPORT PROGRAMS

    Army Reserve Well-Being Program
        As a major element of its long-term force generation plan, the Army
    is formalizing the concept of well-being. The Army Reserve Well-Being
    Program enhances the institutional strength of the Army Reserve through
    a comprehensive strategy that integrates all well-being resources to
    enable Soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and their families to
    become more self-reliant and better able to meet their personal needs
    and aspirations. Army well-being integrates and incorporates existing
    quality of life programs into a framework that supports performance,
    readiness, recruiting, and retention.
        The Army Reserve's well-being program consists of more than 30
    elements. Our goal is to raise awareness and an understanding of the
    relevance of well-being and its impact on Soldiers, civilians, family
    members, and The Army. We are developing strategic communications that
    inform, educate, and engage each Army Reserve well-being constituent.
    The Deployment Cycle Support Program, the Army Reserve Family Program,
    Army Reserve Rear Detachment Operations, and ``Welcome Home, Warrior''
    program are among the most significant of the initiatives that provide
    force generation support for deployed Soldiers and their families.
                Deployment Cycle Support Program
        The Deployment Cycle Support Program (DCS) supports all Soldiers
    and units undergoing reconstitution upon completing a deployment. It is
    a three-phase program. Phase 1 (redeployment) begins when the unit is
    released from its mission and reports to the rear assembly area in
    theater. Phase 2 (demobilization) involves five days of DCS/
    reintegration focus training at the facility from which the unit
    mobilized. Phase 3 (reconstitution) consists of a series of sustainment
    activities at home station.
        Army Reserve units and individual Soldiers (including Individual
    Ready Reserve and Individual Augmentee Soldiers) will return to Reserve
    status as quickly as possible, consistent with mission accomplishment,
    achieving required levels of readiness, and the need to complete key
    DCS tasks.
        The Army Reserve is developing a DCS assistance team to support the
    completion of reconstitution activities at home station. Part of this
    effort will include reinforcement of key information previously
    provided at demobilization stations (e.g., information regarding
    medical and dental entitlements, Veterans Administration services, Army
    Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) services, and family reunion
    workshops). We are developing a DCS program (tools and techniques) to
    ensure that our Soldiers complete all DCS elements, and ensure that
    they have full access to all services throughout their personal
    reintegration.
                Army Reserve Family Program
        Support to Army Reserve Soldiers and their families has been
    paramount to our senior leadership since the beginning of the Global
    War on Terror. The Army Reserve is committed to providing a full range
    of essential support and service to all Soldiers and their families.
    Many initiatives implemented since September 2001 continue to be
    refined as funding becomes available.
        The Army Reserve has nearly 150 full-time and contract family
    program staff members providing essential services to Reserve Soldiers
    and their families. Services are provided through 10 regional readiness
    commands and 26 other general officer commands or separate units in the
    continental United States, the 7th Army Reserve Command in Europe, the
    9th Regional Support Command in Hawaii, and United States Army Civil
    and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne).
        Services provided by Family Program personnel include support and
    assistance to unit leadership. Training programs include the following:
      --Fundamental and Developmental Family Program Academy (FPA).
            Fundamental training includes the basics that help establish
            and maintain a viable, functioning family readiness group at
            the unit level. Developmental FPA training builds on those
            basics and enhances the participants' capability to sustain and
            enhance unit family programs.
      --Operation READY (Resources for Educating About Deployment and You)
            curriculum is a series of training modules, videotapes, and
            resource books published for the Army as resources for staff in
            training Army families affected by deployments.
      --Chain of command training is designed to assist the personnel staff
            from the headquarters through the unit leadership in learning
            more about the scope of family programs within the Army
            Reserve.
      --Deployment Cycle Support training provides instruction for unit
            personnel who assist and manage Soldiers and families during
            the mobilization, deployment, sustainment, and reunion phases
            of the deployment cycle.
      --Mobilization/deployment and reunion briefings are provided by
            family program directors or coordinators at the unit level at
            the time mobilizations, deployments or reunions occur.
      --Senior Volunteer Resource Instructor (SVRI) training provides
            initial and advanced training to volunteer instructors who
            represent the regional readiness command and Army Reserve.
      --The Army Reserve provides direct support to families of Individual
            Ready Reserve and Individual Augmentation Soldiers. The staff
            contacts families by telephone within 48 hours of Soldier
            mobilization and follows up with additional information and
            points of contact. Assistance and support is currently being
            provided to 6,400 families.
                Army Reserve Rear Detachment Operations (ARRDO)
        The Army Reserve is reviewing its Rear Detachment Operations
    (ARRDO) procedures to identify systemic problems and develop solutions
    that update current guidance and outline the way ahead.
        Inadequate information flow from forward command elements to rear
    detachment commanders, pay issues, and family support have surfaced as
    continuous challenges for Soldiers.
        Given the magnitude and the unique nature of Army Reserve rear
    detachment operations, full-time support is critical to providing the
    stability to support current and future contingency operations.
    Welcome Home Citizen--Warrior Program
        This program is intended to ensure that each returning Citizen-
    Warrior understands that his contribution to accomplishing the mission
    and making the homeland more secure for all of our citizens is
    recognized and appreciated by the nation and The Army. The program is a
    vehicle for conveying public recognition and private gratitude that
    might otherwise slip by in the press of demobilization tasks and events
    and the rush to reunite families and friends. Each returning Soldier is
    presented with a shadow-boxed American flag, a Welcome Home, Warrior-
    Hero flag, a Soldier and spouse pin set, and a commemorative coin. The
    Soldier and family reactions at these award ceremonies, which are held
    within 30 days of the units' return to home station, have been
    overwhelmingly positive, and suggest that recognition effort is
    sincerely appreciated.
    Medical Readiness and Medical Hold Improvements
        The Army Reserve has listened to the concerns of all its Soldiers
    and their families, and we have sought ways to provide the best
    healthcare possible and improve administrative processes for Soldiers
    and their families--before, during, and after mobilization. Since
    combatant commanders need a force that is medically fit and ready, the
    Army Reserve has placed increasing stress on medical readiness.
        During the alert phase, the 90 days of pre-mobilization TRICARE
    benefits authorized in the fiscal year 2004 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) and made permanent in the fiscal year 2005
    NDAA is used to improve medical readiness of Army Reserve Soldiers. The
    Federal Strategic Health Alliance, also known as (FEDS-HEAL), is a huge
    success story for the Army Reserve. FEDS-HEAL is a joint venture
    between the Army Reserve and the Department of Health and Human
    Services. This unique program utilizes civilian medical and dental
    services across the United States to provide care to Army Reserve
    Soldiers in their neighborhoods. The program allows alerted Soldiers to
    receive required medical and dental services before they arrive at the
    mobilization site so they are medically ready to deploy with their
    units.
        Because of its remarkable effectiveness, the FEDS-HEAL Program has
    expanded eightfold in the past four years, e.g., Army Reserve Soldiers
    received 47,500 dental exams; 20,600 physical exams; 58,100
    immunizations; 3,600 eye exams; and 4,000 dental treatments through
    FEDS-HEAL in fiscal year 2004, a tremendous boost to Army Reserve
    medical readiness.
    Mobilized Soldier Pay
        One of the difficulties that Reserve Soldiers have had to deal with
    while mobilized and deployed is pay discrepancies. The Army Reserve has
    worked hard to find effective short- and long-term solutions to these
    problems and to improve pay processing for our troops and their
    families. Pay support for tens of thousands of Army Reserve Soldiers
    deployed worldwide was significantly improved during the past year.
    Major actions to improve pay support include:
      --Reserve Pay Training.--The USAR Pay Center has assumed a vital role
            in training mobilizing USAR and ARNG finance units. Since April
            2003, the Army Reserve pay inquiry team has answered over
            23,000 pay inquires from mobilized Army Reserve Soldiers around
            the world.
      --Publications and Soldiers' Guides.--The Army Reserve published the
            ``Army Reserve Finance Guide for Mobilizing Soldiers'' in
            October 2004, and officials at the U.S. Army Finance Command,
            in conjunction with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
            (DFAS), the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard, have
            recently published a finance mobilization/demobilization
            standard operating procedure manual that clearly defines the
            roles and responsibilities of the various pay offices involved
            throughout all phases of a Soldier's mobilization.
      --Automated Mob Pay Transactions.--The Army Reserve has developed
            software applications to improve the timeliness and accuracy of
            mobilization pay. One application allows units to initiate
            mobilization pay and entitlements for Soldiers prior to their
            reporting to the mobilization station. Additionally, it reduces
            the amount of manual pay entitlement processing at the UPC and
            the mobilization station. We are also developing and testing
            software for the Forward Compatible Payroll system. DFAS is
            currently conducting software acceptance testing and an
            operational assessment. Once these tests are completed, three
            Army Reserve units will be serviced in a field test. Current
            plans call for the rest of the Army to come on board by mid-
            summer 2005.

                              EQUIPPING THE FORCE

    The Mother of Invention
        The prolonged nature of the GWOT and the campaigns in Afghanistan
    and Iraq prompted our Army to adopt an expeditionary force structure
    that supports long-term military actions. Our Army's efforts to
    ``modularize'' its structure to achieve depth, flexibility, agility,
    and predictability testify to the necessity of such a change in
    strategies. Equipping the resultant expeditionary force requires no
    less effort or innovation.
        One of the lessons learned in the first Gulf War, which has been
    strongly reinforced in the second, is that wars in the deserts of
    Southwest Asia are as hard on equipment as they are on Soldiers. Our
    ability to equip our forces adequately for a prolonged campaign has
    become a major factor in our ability to close that campaign
    successfully.
        For the Army Reserve, this means profound and enduring change in
    the way we do business. Our previous equipping strategy no longer fits
    how we go to war. The Army Reserve faces several challenges in
    equipping--wartime losses, compatibility, modernization, and resources.
    To focus our attention on this critically important aspect of war
    fighting, we have designated 2005 as the ``Year of Equipping'' in the
    Army Reserve.
        Everything is aimed at the units' in the expeditionary packages
    being able to deploy to support contingency operations. Such units must
    have priority of equipment fill when they deploy; however, as a result
    of the heavy equipment wear associated with desert operations, the use
    of stay-behind equipment, and other related issues, it is not possible
    for us to support full equipment issue for all of our units all of the
    time. Rather, we must intensively manage the equipping of our units not
    only in the theater of operations, but also during all of the stages of
    preparation and training leading to deployment to the theater. Using
    this staged process, we can ensure that each Soldier in each unit has
    the equipment he needs when he needs it.
        We are losing equipment that has been destroyed in combat, and our
    aging inventory is wearing out under extremely heavy usage. The Army
    Materiel Command's projections from the theater indicate that battle
    losses and attrition will be as much as 12 percent of the equipment we
    sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, to better equip incoming
    units, the Army has directed that a portion of Army Reserve equipment
    remain in theater as Stay-Behind Equipment (SBE). Wartime losses and
    SBE decrease equipment available for training for Army Reserve units
    preparing for deployment, homeland defense, or other contingency
    requirements.
        Because the Army Reserve is 75 percent equipped to its authorized
    levels, and due to equipment losses, we must take extreme care of what
    we have available. Sustaining on-hand equipment is resource intensive
    and places great demand on Operations and Maintenance accounts. The
    Depot Maintenance Program is the Army Reserve's strategic sustainment
    base, and its only source to fully recondition, overhaul, and rebuild
    equipment to meet subsequent readiness requirements. Therefore, it is
    imperative that the Army Reserve maintain its current depot maintenance
    funding levels to meet mobilization equipment requirements, extend
    service life, reduce lifecycle costs, and improve safety for Army
    Reserve Soldiers.
        The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) are
    essential to the Army Reserve equipping program and over the past five
    years has addressed a number of critical shortfalls. During that time,
    the Army Reserve has received an average of $35 million annually to
    procure additional equipment that would have been impossible to procure
    from our base budget. Although the Army Reserve received $40 million in
    NGREA funding for fiscal year 2005, an equipment shortfall totaling
    more than $1 billion still remains. We are continuing to work with Army
    and OSD leadership to resolve our equipping shortfalls, but additional
    congressional support remains the most viable solution.
    New Equipping Strategy
        The Army Reserve is actively working to help itself with equipment
    readiness. We have adopted an equipping strategy that is synchronized
    with the five-year AREF rotation cycle. As units progress through each
    year of the five-year cycle, their state of readiness increases
    incrementally. Units ready to deploy, are at the highest level of
    readiness (Year One). Units reconstituting from a deployment, are at
    the base level of readiness (Year Five). Units that are between
    reconstitution and deployment (Years Two-Four), receive the full
    complement of modernized equipment compatible with AC. This will allow
    Army Reserve units to train with their go-to-war systems prior to
    mobilization and deployment.
        The equipping strategy goes one step further by identifying the
    equipment for the individual Soldier training that is done in Year Five
    and for collective training in Years Two through Four. The Army Reserve
    will rotate this equipment on the five-year AREF cycle through its five
    training readiness platforms in California, Texas, Wisconsin, New
    Jersey, and Arkansas. In Year Four, units will draw minimum-essential-
    equipment-for-training sets, which they will use through Year One for
    individual training at home station. Our goal is to fully equip units
    going into a theater of operations.
        There are two important benefits that result from applying these
    equipping strategies. First, reduce the need to cross-level equipment
    upon receipt of mobilization orders. Second, the Army Reserve will
    provide transformed units that are fully interoperable and integrated
    into the Army's modular framework.
        The Army Reserve is also investing aggressively in Depot
    Maintenance and Cascading of equipment. In the Depot Maintenance
    Program, operated by Army Material Command, the Army Reserve is
    overhauling and rebuilding hundreds of aging tractors into the newer
    configuration. In the area of recapitalization, the Army has provided
    the funding to rebuild hundreds of Army Reserve High Mobility Multi-
    Purpose Vehicles, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, and Heavy
    Equipment Transporter Systems.
        Cascading, is the transfer of Active Army equipment to the Reserve
    components and is an essential method of equipping the Army Reserve. By
    cascading, we have integrated hundreds of tactical wheeled vehicles and
    almost a thousand M16A2 rifles into our inventory. We expect that the
    continued cascading of the newer model M16A2 rifles, coupled with NGREA
    funding, to eliminate the over 10,000 older, non-deployable, model
    M16A1 rifles still on-hand. Finally, the Army Reserve has initiated
    equipment conversion programs, such as the gas-to-diesel conversions we
    perform on generators, air compressors, and decontamination equipment.
    The conversion program allows us to be more interoperable with the
    Active force.
        We are continuing to work with the Active Army and OSD leadership
    to resolve our equipping shortfalls, and we appreciate continued
    congressional support of our transformation efforts.

                               TRAINING THE FORCE

    Cyclic Training
        The term ``cyclic'' suggests how the Army Reserve will train and
    develop a sustainable force capable of supporting the Joint Force and
    Army requirements. Tied directly to the rotational structure of the
    Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF), cyclic readiness will
    simultaneously establish priorities for resources, synchronized
    readiness levels, and provide predictable training and deployment time
    frames for Army Reserve Soldiers, families, and employers. Cyclic
    readiness reflects a dramatic change in the Army resulting from the
    Global War on Terror and renders many of the manning, equipping,
    modernization, and training models and policies of the past simply
    irrelevant.
        Train-Alert-Deploy.--In the past the Army Reserve used a ``tiered''
    system of readiness. The assumption was that the Army Reserve would
    have the time after being alerted to resource, train and deploy units
    when they were ready.
        The strategic environment today does not afford us this luxury. The
    Army Reserve is not a supplemental force, but a force complementary to
    the Active Army. Thus, we must be ready to deploy whenever and wherever
    military forces are needed. Further, our force must be ready to deploy
    to support the combatant commander and also to perform homeland defense
    missions in support of civil authorities. Our forces must be ready to
    conduct their missions with very little time for pre-deployment
    training. Therefore, our readiness paradigm has changed from alert-
    train-deploy to train-alert-deploy. This means that we must start with
    a firm individual readiness base and devote the resources we have to
    training the Army Reserve Expeditionary Packages (AREPs) to ever higher
    states of collective readiness as they progress through each year of
    their five-year cycle. Our strategy is based on having a full array of
    combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) capabilities ready
    and available to the nation.
        Readiness Assessment.--The readiness and training expectations for
    Army Reserve forces are the same as those for the Active component.
    While the standards are the same, the conditions under which the Army
    Reserve prepares for its missions are significantly different. The
    limited ``train, alert, and deploy'' training time for our Citizen-
    Soldiers competes with numerous priorities and must be used effectively
    and efficiently.
        Leadership.--The Army Reserve is strengthening its leaders by
    executing the Army Reserve Leadership Campaign Plan. The future Army
    Reserve demands leaders who are self-aware, adaptable and agile, and
    life-long learners. The quality of Army Reserve leadership is the
    foundation for achieving Army Reserve readiness and relevance for the
    21st century. Institutional leader development consists of officer,
    warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, civilian, and MILTECH
    training. The operational aspects of leader development occur in
    company-team leader and pre-command courses (battalion and brigade),
    battle staff simulation exercises, combat training center (CTC) or
    ``CTC-like'' events, and culminate in mission-rehearsal exercises. The
    self-development aspects of revitalized leader development include
    improved mentorship programs, a leader development assessment program
    that includes command climate surveys (also part of operational
    experiences), and use of Battle Command Knowledge System (BCKS)
    products.
        Training Support.--The integrated training divisions (ITD) provide
    support to AREF leaders. These ITDs will provide full-spectrum support
    for individual through collective training. All Army Reserve
    organizations are transforming. Separate divisional forces that support
    training (training support and institutional training divisions) are
    becoming integrated training divisions, with some current institutional
    training division capabilities migrating to the 84th Army Reserve
    Readiness Training Command (ARRTC). ITDs provide specialty
    reclassification training as a part of the NCO educational system
    throughout the five-year AREF cycle. In addition, these elements
    provide skill reinforcement and refresher training through the use of
    mobile training teams that partner with ITD collective training support
    organizations. Collective training support elements consist of training
    exercise developers, trained and certified observer/controllers, and
    simulations support elements. The ITDs are multi-component
    organizations composed of Active component, Army National Guard, and
    Army Reserve personnel. Thus, the ITD includes a combination of combat
    arms, combat support, combat service support, and simulations skills
    capable of simultaneously supporting both post-mobilization validation
    (if required) as well as pre-mobilization training support during years
    two and three of the AREF cycle.
        Army Reserve Installations are a vital part of training and
    deployment activities we continue to upgrade and modernize our four
    major installations--Fort Dix, NJ, Fort McCoy, WI, Fort Hunter-Liggett/
    Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, CA, and Fort Buchanan, PR. We are
    also partnering with the Army National Guard to provide mutual and
    accessible training areas and ranges for Reserve component units.

                              SHELTERING THE FORCE

    More than Bricks and Mortar
        Today, the Army Reserve owns and operates buildings and facilities
    in a thousand communities across the nation. Our Reserve centers are
    frequently the most visible evidence of the presence of our Citizen-
    Warriors in their communities. These Reserve centers (many of them
    joint centers, operated with the Reserve components of other services)
    are representative of our Soldiers and the federal government to
    members of the community at large. They speak of us and of our
    commitment to the national defense and our national interests.
        Our training, storage, and maintenance facilities stand as
    reminders of the nobility of service and the duty that all citizens owe
    to their country. They reflect upon our Soldiers' commitment,
    dedication, and professionalism. We are judged to some degree at least
    on the public face that our facilities present to those who see them
    daily and who mark their fortunes by what they see. Citizens who see
    clean, well-maintained, and modern facilities judge their occupants by
    appearances and measure their occupants' professional competence, in
    part, by the impression that these facilities present. Attractive,
    adequate facilities raise our fellow citizens' trust and confidence in
    their Army and its Reserve components.
        In a time when recruiting and retention are challenging our best
    efforts, these facilities can be a great advantage if they tell the
    right story and assure our Soldiers that their leaders are concerned
    about their surroundings and the facilities in which they work and
    train, daily, weekly, monthly, and often at their own expense. Good
    facilities reflect the nation's esteem and priorities and encourage
    good Soldiers to stay with the program and to recruit others to the
    mission that they have themselves undertaken and that is symbolized by
    the facilities in which they train. Modern, uncrowded facilities speak
    eloquently of the investment that the federal government has made in
    the competence, well-being, morale, and dedication of its Citizen-
    Warriors. Investment in new Reserve facilities and maintenance and
    restoration of existing facilities are more than bricks and mortar,
    they are strong and indisputable evidence of the nation's recognition
    and gratitude, and the belle-weather of our commitment to our Citizen-
    Warriors who train and work within their walls.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes four new Reserve
    training centers and second phases for two others, as well as the first
    phase of an NCO academy and six training ranges. When complete, the
    Reserve centers will support over 2,700 Army Reserve Soldiers, and the
    training ranges will support over 130,000 Soldiers from all Army
    components and other services. These projects are currently under
    design and will be ready for award in fiscal year 2006. We can do more
    if we can do more.

                               READYING THE FORCE

    The Cost of Readiness
        A trained and ready Army Reserve is essential to the Army's ability
    to execute the national military and security strategies. Currently the
    Army Reserve is fully engaged in the Global War on Terror, meeting the
    needs of the combatant commanders, transforming, and preparing for
    future mobilizations. Over the past 39 months, the Army Reserve
    mobilized and deployed units at much higher personnel and equipping
    levels than authorized and resourced. All of this has not been without
    cost in resources and readiness.
      --Army Reserve readiness requires adequate resources--specifically in
            Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA), Operations and Maintenance, Army
            Reserve (OMAR), and Other Procurement, Army (OPA) funding--to
            be fully operational, properly maintained, and mission capable.
      --A large number of the Army Reserve's units will be required in
            follow-on rotations. In order to meet future requirements, the
            Army Reserve is working with the Active Army and OSD leadership
            to develop balanced, responsive, and effective strength
            management policies and programs.
      --The Army Reserve needs support to modernize and re-equip its force
            in support of a modular Army engaged in the GWOT.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Army Reserve is changing daily as it advances in the Global War
    on Terror. We face a battle with two fronts, each one feeding and
    feeding on, the other. The Global War on Terror drives us to rethink,
    reform, regenerate, and optimize our force so we can carry out our
    mission with greater efficiency and more effectively support the nation
    and the troops who are themselves supporting the same mission.
    Simultaneously, realigned, reset, and re-oriented, our Citizen-Warriors
    cycle through a progression of serial stages of preparation,
    mobilization, deployment, engagement, and regeneration in support of
    the same global campaign that precipitates the cycle. The military and
    political world of the 21st century has changed dramatically and
    exponentially in the past few years and the changes show no hint of
    slowing down. Your Army Reserve continues to perform its vital mission
    under Title 10, USC, providing trained, equipped, and ready individuals
    and forces to meet the nation's military needs. With the help of the
    Congress and our fellow citizens, we will continue to serve as an
    increasingly essential element of our Army and our nation.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, and we welcome you.
    Would you tell me again your names and where did you serve?
        General Helmly. Sir, Captain Damon Martin--I am sorry.
    Captain Damon Garner and Sergeant First Class James Martin. I
    would ask them to stand at this time.
        Senator Stevens. Captain, where did you serve?
        Captain Garner. Iraq, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Very good. How long were you over there?
        Captain Garner. One year, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Sergeant.
        Sergeant Martin. I have been in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii,
    sir, with the infantry, 25th Infantry Division. Also, presently
    I am with the 99th Region Readiness Command (RRC).
        Senator Stevens. Very good. Thank you very much for joining
    us here today. We appreciate it. These hearings are sort of
    difficult when we have the Senate in session, but we are glad
    to have you visit. Thank you very much.
        General Helmly, are you the first?
        General Helmly. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral Cotton.

    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN G. COTTON, CHIEF, NAVAL
                RESERVE, UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Cotton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this
    opportunity to address everyone.
        The Navy's Reserve component is more ready, responsive, and
    relevant than it has ever been. Last year when I appeared
    before this subcommittee I stressed Active-Reserve integration
    and especially alignment. I would like to say that has
    continued and I am very encouraged by the way that we have
    worked with Navy leadership. We have been blessed by two
    leaders who understand the total force and its importance,
    Secretary of the Navy Gordon England and of course our Chief of
    Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Vern Clark.
        We have over 23,000 reservists on orders right now
    providing operational support to the fleet, over 4,000
    mobilized, with 3,000 in Central Command providing critical
    support to our operations there. We have worked together
    closely in the past year on all initiatives--BRAC, Quadrennial
    Defense Review, and our budgets. I am proud to say that we are
    acting as a team like never before.
        I look forward to your questions, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral John G. Cotton

                                    OPENING

        Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today about some of the important changes
    that are happening in the Navy and its Reserve Force, and to give you a
    report on our accomplishments and current state of readiness.
        Last year, Admiral Vern Clark challenged us with the statement,
    ``Change to make us better is completely necessary--to make our Navy
    even better and to build the 21st century Navy, and the Reserve is a
    key part of our growth and our future.'' We have met this challenge and
    have attained dramatic improvements, changing our culture and the shape
    of the Force, moving away from an obsolete Cold War construct to one
    that provides the flexible capabilities needed to fight the
    unconventional threats of the 21st century.
        You can't change culture with money; it takes leadership. I want to
    thank this distinguished panel for the leadership demonstrated in
    voting for the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, which provided
    the legislative basis for the Secretary of the Navy to facilitate
    changing our name from the United States Naval Reserve to the United
    States Navy Reserve. We soon hope to have Presidential approval, and
    are in the process of complying with the provisions of the Act,
    including future submission of the required conforming legislation to
    Congress. Once we have become the U.S. Navy Reserve, the Chief of Naval
    Operations (CNO) intends to promulgate guidance to ``drop the R,'' like
    the Marines did in 1997. Our great Sailors have always been in the
    Navy--they are the RE-serve component of the greatest Navy ever. The
    initials USNR, USNR-R, USNR TAR will no longer be used--we are all in
    the Navy. We will still have Reserve Component (RC) commissions and
    designators that put us in the right personnel categories, but we're in
    the Navy, ready and fully integrated. We might work just 2 or more days
    a month, but you cannot turn off the honor, courage and commitment that
    comes with being in the Navy 24/7/365, ready to serve.
        Today's busy Navy Reservists have three missions. Their primary job
    revolves around increasing our Navy's warfighting capability. Periodic
    and predictable service provided by our RC Sailors, in the right place,
    at the right time, with the right skill sets enhances the operational
    effectiveness of the supported command--affordably. Second, Reservists
    will be key players in homeland security and defense. By aligning our
    capabilities and shaping our force to support the missions of NORTHCOM,
    Reservists have the skills that will not only improve security at home,
    but will enable active forces to take the fight to the enemy and win
    the ``away'' game. Lastly, every Sailor acts as a service ambassador
    and recruiter in every town in America. The broad distribution of these
    Sailors provides a constant and visible reminder to citizens in every
    state, and especially in the Nation's heartland, that the Navy is on
    watch, providing them with unmatched capability in the maritime domain,
    as well as educating and calling our young people to serve our Nation.
    This affiliation with ``Main Street USA'' and the fabric of our Nation
    is something else that money can't buy, and is a mission that the Navy
    Reserve embraces.

                                    MANPOWER

        Our most important asset is, always has been, and forever will
    remain, our Sailors--our ``Sea Warriors.'' Admiral Clark stresses the
    importance of continuously enabling and developing every Sailor, and
    has challenged the Navy to deliver a Human Capital Strategy (HCS) in
    2005. This HCS theme will repeat throughout my statement.
        The Navy's Total Force HCS will build upon last year's successes:
      --Continue development of Active-Reserve Integration.
      --Execute elimination of Naval Reserve ``titles'' and foster Active
            Component (AC) ownership of the RC elements in one Navy.
      --Continue analysis of the functions and roles of the RC in the
            future Total Force.
      --Complete the consolidation of Active-Reserve recruiting.
      --Continue to identify and develop RC skills training and
            professional military education requirements for incorporation
            into Sea Warrior.
        The Navy will deliver a HCS that is both mission and cost
    effective, while remaining ``capability focused.'' Typically, when a
    24/7/365 presence is required, the AC would provide the preponderance
    of the capability. When the requirement is periodic and predictable,
    the capability should be provided by an RC Sailor at about one-fifth
    the cost of their AC counterpart. When the requirement is best
    supported by specialized skills and long-term continuity, our civilian
    workforce provides the best fill. Finally, when time critical
    requirements are identified that fall beyond the scope of Navy skill
    sets, then contractors should be utilized to fill the need pending
    development of the capability or for the duration of a short-term
    requirement. Presence, predictability, periodicity and skill sets
    determine work division, not arbitrary lines drawn between components.
        The Navy HCS is already demonstrating ``value added'' in that Navy
    requirements are met with RC capabilities, no longer simply a matter of
    ``mobilization numbers.'' Historically, effectiveness of the RC has
    been measured by the number of personnel mobilized and on active duty.
    More than 28,000 Navy Reservists have been mobilized since 9/11, and
    nearly 12,000 served on active duty during the peak of OIF in May 2003.
    However, the mobilization metric falls far short of measuring the work
    being done by Reservists each and every day. On any given day, over
    20,000 RE-servists are on some type of orders, providing fully
    integrated operational support to their AC and joint commands, both at
    home and overseas. This contribution is extremely valuable and
    represents a significant return on ``sunk'' training costs, enabling
    mature, seasoned and capable veterans to surge to Fleet requirements.
    The judicious use of operational support enables the Navy RC to meet
    surge requirements short of mobilization, while providing enhanced
    ``volunteerism'' options for our Sailors. Thus, operational support
    provides full spectrum access to RC capabilities, which are more
    relevant than ever.
        The greater readiness provided by full spectrum access is evident
    by the effective and judicious use of our ``high demand, low density''
    units and individual augmentee skill sets. A prime example is
    demonstrated daily by the Navy Reserve Intelligence Program, which is
    fully integrated into all Fleet operations. These highly skilled
    professionals face increased Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) demands not
    only from the Navy but also from every Combatant Commander (COCOM).
    Navy leadership is utilizing Intelligence Reservists daily with
    inactive duty drills and annual training, active duty for training, and
    active duty for special work, and mobilization to provide consistent,
    high quality support to joint operating forces. More than 1,700 Sailors
    have been mobilized since 9/11, representing over 40 percent of the
    Intelligence program's nearly 4,000 Reservists, in support of 117 Navy
    and Joint Commands in 150 different locations worldwide, providing
    real-time operational support to senior decision makers and commanders
    in the field.
        The roles and missions of these professionals have been wide
    ranging. RC targeting officers have augmented every Carrier Air Wing
    deployed for Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM since 9/11.
    Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere have obtained information
    leading to the breakup of global terror cells. They have deployed with
    Navy SEAL teams, augmented combat staffs aboard ships, stood
    counterterrorism watches, supported Joint Task Forces, and captured
    foreign materiel. Also, the effective use of Joint Reserve Intelligence
    Centers (JRICs) since 9/11 has added a new tool for deployed
    warfighters in all COCOMs.
        While most mobilized Reserve Intelligence professionals have
    reported to their supported Joint and Navy Commands, over 13 percent
    have been mobilized to 27 JRICs located throughout the country. They
    are an example of an evolving reach-back capability that directly
    supports forward operations and represents one more step in the Navy's
    progress toward a net-centric future. Intelligence Reservists averaged
    over 80 days of active duty per person each year since 9/11. This high
    RC personnel tempo is an excellent example of the immense value added
    by these Sailors, largely through ``volunteerism.''

                               CURRENT READINESS

    Global War On Terrorism
        Navy Reservists are performing superbly in many important GWOT
    roles. To date, 19 of our RC Sailors have made the ultimate sacrifice
    while deployed in support of current operations, with many more
    suffering serious injuries. On July 11, 2004, I had the distinct
    privilege of presenting the Purple Heart Medal to 16 Seabees from Naval
    Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 14, in Jacksonville, FL. A total
    of 7 Sailors were killed and 19 were wounded in attacks on April 30 and
    May 2, 2004 while mobilized in support of OIF. The loss of these brave
    Americans underscores the honor, courage and commitment that drive our
    Nation's Reservists, and the willingness of citizen Sailors to make
    tremendous sacrifices for not only our freedom, but also for our
    coalition partners.
        Perhaps the biggest challenge involves the anticipated GWOT demand
    for Navy Reservists to support land-based missions in CENTCOM. The
    Secretary of Defense has directed Navy to take a close look at the
    combat service support missions, and we are leaning forward to
    aggressively plan our engagement strategies. The GWOT presents new and
    dynamic challenges to our Navy and our Nation, and will require a
    flexible Navy Reserve capable of supporting non-traditional missions.
        One way we are meeting this challenge is to develop a customs
    inspection capability to support deployed forces. Over 450 SELRES and
    volunteers from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) were screened and
    selected for this new mission. Mobilized Sailors reported to the Naval
    Expeditionary Logistics Support Force HQ in Williamsburg, VA, in early
    December 2004 for outfitting and training, which included Customs
    Inspector certification and expeditionary warfighting skills.
    Subsequently, they deployed to Kuwait in late January 2005 for turnover
    with Air Force personnel.
        Additionally, Navy has assumed the responsibility for managing the
    detainee program at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. AC and RC have blended
    qualified personnel as needed to enhance the security force.
        Mobilized Navy ``Seabees'' have continuously deployed in support of
    CENTCOM operations. Over 40 percent of the Seabee force has been
    mobilized since 9/11, providing critical combat construction support to
    forces in Iraq and Kuwait. Navy construction forces rely heavily upon
    RC Sailors, bringing critical civilian skill sets, maturity and
    experience to the mission.
        In January 2004, Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Force
    mobilized more than 525 Sailors from four of its Cargo Handling and
    Supply Support Battalions, who relieved and augmented a variety of Army
    and Marine Corps logistics units. These Navy Reserve cargo handlers
    (stevedores, fuels and mail) are working with the Army to provide
    critical combat support to Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Kuwait in
    support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Subsequently, additional Sailors
    have been mobilized and have relieved these forces in theater.
        In March 2003, the Navy deployed Helicopter Combat Support Special
    Squadron Five (HCS 5) to Iraq to provide a key capability in support of
    active ground forces in OIF. Maintaining a high operational tempo, HCS
    5 supported the Joint Special Operations Aviation Command, flying
    combat missions against the enemy. One year later, HCS 5 was relieved
    by her sister squadron, HCS 4, who remains in theater to date. These
    two RE-serve squadrons represent 50 percent of Navy's helicopter combat
    support capability.
        The Navy Reserve will expand its role in combat service support.
    Our dedicated Reservists will be placed into training pipelines for up
    to 4 months to develop and hone special skill sets and combat
    capabilities needed to support the GWOT. These Sailors will then go
    forward, ``boots on ground'' with the Army. When they return, we will
    establish Joint Provisional Units to house these unique skill sets,
    where Reservists will remain on ``hot standby'' for consequence
    management in support of NORTHCOM Homeland Defense requirements.
    Homeland Defense
        ``We the People'' are all joined in a common interest, homeland
    defense. Only a few times in our history has the enemy brought the
    fight to our country. Declaring independence in 1776, we defeated the
    British twice in a span of nearly 40 years. No one can forget the ``Day
    of Infamy'' at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, nor will anyone soon
    forget the events of 9/11, 3 short years ago, in New York City, at the
    Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. We are now engaged in the
    GWOT, another long war to preserve our way of life. We must win this
    ``away'' game to ensure that it never again becomes another ``home''
    game.
        While most Reserve Sailors are compensated for only a few days each
    month, they are in the Navy 24/7/365, selflessly serving their Nation
    with honor, courage and commitment. As the President instructed them 3
    years ago, they stand fully ready--they are the new minutemen in the
    same tradition as those who stood on the Commons in Lexington and at
    the North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts. As veterans, they provide
    military experience and capabilities as well as a myriad of civilian
    skill sets critical to the support of Sea Power 21, ready to quickly
    surge to any global crisis and respond to disasters at home. Reserve
    Sailors live in every state and will become more regionally aligned
    with NORTHCOM as the Nation develops its Homeland Defense strategy. We
    are ready to answer the call, as Americans have done for 229 years. The
    CNO recently stated, ``I am convinced that responsibility for Maritime
    Domain Awareness (MDA) should rest first and foremost with the United
    States Coast Guard. I am also convinced that there is a role for the
    United States Navy to play in response and in support of the Coast
    Guard, bringing our resources to bear wherever they are required.''
        The Navy is partnering with the Coast Guard because we share a
    common interest in defending our Nation's maritime approaches. When a
    ship comes near our coastlines, we need to know where it is going and
    what cargo it is carrying. MDA is the effective understanding of all
    elements of the global maritime environment that could impact the
    security, safety, economy or environment of the United States.
        Significant roles will be played by several combatant commanders,
    NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM, STRATCOM, and many other Federal and State
    Departments. PACOM, EUCOM and CENTCOM will also contribute to MDA if we
    are to be successful in countering threats far from our shores. Efforts
    by the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to
    make MDA truly an interagency effort are just beginning, and the Navy
    Reserve has tremendous potential to join other major stakeholders in
    providing workable solutions to ensure a more cost effective MDA
    strategy.
        In November 2004, Admiral Tim Keating assumed command of NORTHCOM.
    In developing MDA, his staff will be utilizing lessons learned from
    many years of successful North American Air Defense operations that
    have monitored all air traffic in U.S. airspace. Navy Reservists stand
    ready to augment the MDA staff with personnel from the Space Warfare
    Command, Intelligence, Naval Control and Guidance of Shipping, Tactical
    Support Center, Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare (MIUW), Military
    Sealift Command, Naval Air Force Reserve, and Distributed Common Ground
    System-Navy (DCGS-N) units.
        NORTHCOM is planning to stand up a Joint Reserve Unit with
    Intelligence community watch standers and analysts that will conduct
    port security surveys while working with the Coast Guard's Joint Harbor
    Operation/Maritime Operations Centers. The Navy Reserve will fully
    support this new capability.
        One capability central to Homeland Defense (HLD) is provided by
    Navy Coastal Warfare (NCW), whose mission is to provide surface and
    subsurface surveillance in littoral areas throughout the world.
    Secondary missions include command, control and communications
    functions. Navy Reserve MIUW units and Inshore Boat Units have, until
    recently, provided the sole capability for this mission within the
    Navy. Due to the ``high-demand/low-density'' mission and structure, the
    Navy has established eight AC NCW units, under the operational control
    of the newly established Maritime Force Protection Command to aid in
    force protection missions. This vital capability will now be provided
    by a mixture of AC and RC forces, once again aptly demonstrating the
    ability of the Navy Reserve Force to serve as a test bed for new
    capabilities and as an enabler for transitioning validated capabilities
    to the AC when required.
        The Navy has, in fact, already begun joint experimentation with the
    Coast Guard, exploring new situational awareness systems, and plans are
    being formulated to provide demonstrations later this year. One such
    system, a littoral version of DCGS-N, was provided to the Navy by the
    Congress over the past few years. DCGS-N merges intelligence,
    surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting, mission planning, and
    situational-awareness functions into a web-enabled, net-centric, Joint-
    interoperable architecture. This invaluable capability, long the
    province of Strike Groups and major ground combat units, will soon
    demonstrate its potential value in supporting MDA.
        Another potential Homeland Defense capability is being demonstrated
    by Operation VIGILANT MARINER. Embarked Security Teams (EST) will
    provide security augmentation to Military Sealift Command/Ready Reserve
    Fleet/Contract Carrier ships to detect, deter and defend against
    waterborne and land-based terrorist attacks. The initial teams will be
    composed of AC Sailors, with RC EST's providing ready surge capability
    for global operations. These RC EST's will also be able to perform
    CONUS-based force protection missions either in civilian ports or as an
    augmentation force to Navy installations and shore facilities requiring
    extra protection.
        To effectively support Homeland Defense initiatives, every state
    should have a Joint Headquarters, manned by personnel from each of the
    seven Reserve Components. While the National Guard will focus on
    states, the Navy will focus on regions as part of Commander, Navy
    Installations' ongoing alignment initiative. When we respond to a
    crisis, we will do so under a regional construct, surging both AC and
    RC Sailors to assist with threats. As we continue to develop this
    concept, we will work closely with the National Guard Bureau and other
    agencies. This structure further aligns our organizations to provide
    enhanced support and coordination by having citizen Sailors protect
    their home regions.

                                FUTURE READINESS

        The Navy is taking ownership of its RC. Some specialized
    communities, such as Public Affairs, now direct the entire personnel
    selection and processing system, and are detailing Reservists to
    supported commands. This is exactly how all RC assignments will be done
    in the future, leveraging experience, demographics, special skill sets
    and desire to serve in operational units and perform operational
    mission support.
        The future detailing of our Reservists will incorporate a Sea
    Warrior initiative known as the Career Management System. This self-
    service, web-based tool will provide every Sailor visibility into all
    available Navy billets. It will also provide the necessary details,
    including job description, required competencies, unit location and
    special requirements, so that our Sailors can apply for jobs that best
    fit their career plans while meeting the needs of the Navy.
        In 2003, we began another very productive initiative to enable Navy
    leadership to view RC readiness information through the Type Commander
    Readiness Management System (TRMS). We created an innovative module
    called the Navy Reserve Readiness Module that links numerous databases,
    including the Medical Readiness Reporting System (MRRS), the Navy
    Reserve Order Writing System (NROWS), the Reserve Headquarters System
    (RHS), and the Navy Marine Corps Mobilization Processing System
    (NMCMPS).
        Decision makers and force providers can use this system on any
    desktop computer to drill down through every region, every Reserve
    Activity, every unit, down to the individual Sailor. This easy-to-use
    system has greatly improved readiness and will allow the AC to better
    match resources to requirements, identify gaps, and provide focused
    training to close those gaps. AC ownership of, and responsibility for,
    the readiness of its assigned Reservists is the objective. This is a
    significant shift in culture that will greatly improve the readiness
    and effectiveness of the Total Force.
        A major thrust over the past year has been the improvement of the
    Navy Reserve's enterprise efficiency while enhancing operational
    effectiveness. Knowledge Management (KM) methodology has been the
    driver of this effort, and the Navy Reserve is leading the way. KM has
    been applied across the enterprise, resulting in better organizational
    alignment with the AC, better understanding of Navy requirements for
    its RC, and development of quicker response mechanisms that will better
    support the Joint Force. KM focuses our efforts on readiness, and helps
    us get the most ``bang for the buck'' in terms of operational
    availability and speed of response.

                               QUALITY OF SERVICE

        The Secretary of Defense instituted a force structure planning goal
    of limiting the involuntary mobilization of Reservists to 1 year out of
    every 6. When Reservists deploy to support the war, they want to know
    three things: ``when, where, and for how long?'' They are ready to
    serve, and while deployed deserve the same pay and benefits earned by
    AC personnel. The Department of Defense is working toward a common pay
    and benefits system for personnel from all components, Active, Guard
    and Reserve, which will support the Navy's efforts to properly support
    Sailors, whether mobilized or performing operational support.
        Additionally, the Navy's HCS is validating the requirement for
    different levels of RC participation. Today, about one-third of our
    Force participates at the traditional level of 38 days per year of
    inactive duty drills and annual training. Another one-third operates at
    an increased level of participation between 38 and 100 days per year.
    The remaining one-third is able to serve in excess of 100 days per
    year, with some being able to recall for years. Given a continued
    demand signal for all of these levels of participation, innovative
    methods to predict and budget for requirements will have to be
    developed by resource sponsors. The result will be a much more
    integrated Total Force and greatly enhanced full spectrum RC
    operational support.
        One of our efforts to improve the delivery of support across the
    ``capability spectrum'' is the consolidation of the RC MILPERS
    appropriation budget activity structure. The current ``two budget
    activity'' structure of RC MILPERS appropriations, as set up over 20
    years ago, is outmoded, cumbersome and not adequately responsive for
    21st century budget execution. It leads to inefficiencies in the
    Department's administration of funds, creates unnecessary budget
    execution uncertainties, and can result in the receipt of unexpended
    funds so late in the year that their effective use is minimized.
        Combining the two RC MILPERS budget activities, BA1 and BA2, into a
    single budget activity within the RC appropriation is a sensible
    adjustment which enables more efficient use of resources, permits
    sufficient continued oversight of budget execution, and supports the
    Secretary's desire to transform and improve financial processes.
        The Navy Reserve's fiscal year 2006 budget submission accounts for
    this consolidation and has been fully approved and supported by the
    Department of Defense. This initiative will have a dramatic impact on
    our ability to provide full spectrum operational support, as well as
    improve our Sailors' quality of service through the ability to tailor
    their orders to actual requirements. This also furthers our ability to
    leverage the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act authority to have
    up to 6200 Sailors performing full time operational support for up to
    three out of 4 years, a very welcome change in policy that enhances our
    ability to surge to GWOT requirements.
        The timeliness and way that information flows to the Reserve Force
    is one of our biggest challenges in ensuring Quality of Service. The
    degree to which we effectively communicate significantly impacts our
    level of success. We have created several forums for communicating Navy
    priorities, key leadership messages, relevant news, and opportunities
    to and from the field, and they have proven to be very effective. We
    host a bi-weekly briefing by video teleconference to inform the Force
    and solicit input from every echelon. We established an e-mail
    communication protocol through the Public Affairs office to
    electronically distribute information to more than 5,000 key Navy
    Reservists and Department of Defense personnel. Our award-winning
    magazine, The Navy Reservist, is mailed monthly to every Navy
    Reservist's home (over 80,000 individuals and their families). The flow
    of information enables us to quickly identify issues and opportunities
    and to target the proper audiences for action. The speed of actionable
    information has greatly increased as we build the Navy of the future.
        Most critical to our success remains the important roles of our
    families and employers in supporting our Sailors. Our families enable
    us to go forward with love and support, and our employers guarantee our
    jobs when we return, often with additional benefits as their much
    appreciated contributions to the cause. We all serve together and
    cannot win the GWOT without the many tremendous sacrifices Americans
    make for national defense.
        In the past year, we have worked to strengthen the already very
    effective Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) program. For
    the first time since the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was passed, the Department of Labor
    has published regulations to enhance understanding and assist in the
    enforcement of this landmark legislation. Never before have our
    Nation's employers played such a critical role in our National Defense,
    with many providing benefits far beyond the USERRA requirements. We
    should continue to look for opportunities to further incentivize and
    partner with employers who do so much to care for our Reservists.

                                   ALIGNMENT

        Through ongoing transformation, the Navy is accelerating the
    Nation's warfighting advantage. Admiral Clark has detailed the ``state
    of the Navy'' more fully in his testimony, but several initiatives will
    have a direct and positive impact on the Navy Reserve, the most
    significant being Active-Reserve Integration (ARI). ARI is more than a
    ``bumper sticker'' . . . it is a key component of the evolving HCS. The
    key step in achieving ARI is to determine what the AC requires its RC
    to do, as well as how and when to surge Reservists. Accordingly,
    Admiral Clark tasked Fleet Forces Command to conduct a review of all RC
    capabilities, and in August 2004 approved the results. This ``Zero-
    Based Review'' (ZBR) laid the groundwork for a more integrated and
    aligned Total Force in which RC capabilities directly support SEAPOWER
    21.
        The ZBR systematically studied gaps in AC capabilities that could
    or should be filled by the RC. Cost and risk values were assigned to
    each validated RC capability relative to the AC mission to enable
    leadership to make informed decisions regarding appropriate levels of
    investment. The result was a blend of existing and new capabilities,
    while others were recommended for realignment or divestment. The review
    acknowledged two essential types of support the AC will receive from
    the RC: (1) units that stand up when required to provide a specific
    capability, and (2) individuals or portions of units that can augment
    existing active commands. Validated capabilities are designed to
    increase the warfighting wholeness of the Navy, and represent ``what
    the AC needs to have,'' not just what is ``nice to have.''
        We have changed the way we assess ourselves, as well as the way we
    train in support of the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). We are transitioning
    to a capabilities-based Force driven by Navy requirements. The ZBR
    inventoried the RC against sixty-one capabilities and ``mapped'' them
    to Navy mission areas. Every billet and every unit was examined for
    both surge and operational support value. We are synchronizing data to
    enable us to plan and act as ``One Navy.'' The results of the
    assessment are included in the OPNAV programming, budgeting and
    execution system, partnering resources to provide better support to the
    warfighters.
        One of the most significant outcomes of the initial ZBR is that in
    fiscal year 2006, the Navy Reserve will reduce end strength by 10,300
    Sailors. To execute the FRP, Navy Active and Reserve Components have
    accelerated their alignment, synchronizing their efforts to become a
    more effective and efficient warfighting team. This is a ``win-win''
    scenario for the Navy and the taxpayer, reflecting not a reduction in
    capabilities, but rather capabilities more effectively and much more
    efficiently delivered!
        We are expending significant effort to ensure effective RC
    management as well. AC and RC manpower experts are partnering to
    conduct a Full Time Support program ``Flag Pole Study'' to determine
    the most effective and efficient manner to structure and allocate our
    RC management personnel across Navy Reserve Activities and in Fleet
    commands.
        Another key element of our Full Time Support program is our
    civilian employees. Over 100 civilian employees assigned to Commander,
    Navy Reserve Forces Command and the Office of the Chief of Navy Reserve
    will be among the first Navy employees to be administered under the new
    National Security Personnel System (NSPS). July 2005 transition
    activities will be preceded by on-line and class room training for all
    affected civilian employees and their supervisors (both civilian and
    military). This initial group represents approximately one-quarter of
    the Navy Reserve's civilian employee population.
        Another component of ARI is the alignment of RC infrastructure.
    Commander, Naval Installations (CNI), the Navy's landlord, now includes
    every Navy Reserve activity in its regions for better processing of
    service and support requests. There are no longer any Navy Reserve
    Bases, only Navy Bases with different human capital strategies, and
    we're all working together to support the Fleet.
        We can no longer think of ourselves as separate Reserve activities
    in every state. We must integrate as part of Navy Regions. We hope to
    never build another Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, but will instead
    build only modern Armed Forces Reserve Centers or Joint Operational
    Support Centers that will promote joint operations, enhance
    interoperability and significantly reduce overhead costs. We will train
    jointly at home to deploy and fight jointly overseas.
        One significant alignment success story that has resulted in
    achievement of major efficiencies is the Navy Recruiting mission. The
    former Navy Reserve Recruiting Command has merged with Navy Recruiting
    Command to provide a seamless recruiting organization capable of
    providing all service options to potential Navy Sailors. Not a mere
    name change, RC recruiters and staff are serving alongside their AC
    counterparts. Some of our Navy Recruiting Districts are commanded by
    Full Time Support Officers. We also have senior enlisted FTS Career
    Recruiter Force personnel serving as NRD Chief Recruiters. Total Force
    recruiting epitomizes a truly customer-oriented focus, where a
    potential Sailor is exposed to every option for service in the Navy.
    Every career consideration and every possible enlistment incentive is
    now tailored to the needs of the individual. Our ultimate goal is to
    recruit 100 percent of the qualified applicants that ``cross the brow''
    and retain 100 percent of the Sailors with viable career options in the
    Navy, whether AC or RC.
        Our vision continues to be support to the Fleet, ready and fully
    integrated. The RC provides predictable and periodic surge support in
    the FRP, and has been very effectively integrated into all capabilities
    in the Navy's operating forces. The Navy is getting slightly smaller,
    but much more effective, providing increased warfighting wholeness and
    a much better return on investment.

                                    SUMMARY

        Navy RE-servists provide worldwide operational support and we are
    proud of our many accomplishments since 9/11. We continue to push for
    further integration and alignment within the Navy, while surging with
    greater speed, flexibility and responsiveness than ever before. Our
    dedicated Sailors provide the key to future success. During Operation
    ENDURING FREEDOM, a deployed combatant ship Commanding Officer said,
    ``People ask me if I'm worried about the youth of America today. I tell
    em not at all, because I see the very best of them every day.''
        Navy Reserve leadership agrees. Our Sailors have never been so
    capable and committed. Their honor, courage and commitment make our
    profession the most highly respected profession in the United States
    today and our Navy the most admired around the world. We could not be
    more proud of the effort they put forth and the results they have
    achieved over the past year. We are looking forward to even greater
    success as our alignment efforts progress and many new initiatives
    mature and become adopted by the Fleet.
        In closing, I would like to thank this committee for the support
    you have provided the Navy Reserve and all of the Guard and Reserve
    components. The 2005 National Defense Authorization Act provided
    several significant, positive benefits that will help us recruit and
    retain our talented Sailors to better support the Navy and Joint
    commands. As you can see, this is a very exciting period for the Navy
    and the Navy Reserve. The CNO has challenged every Sailor to review
    current ways of doing business and suggest solutions that will improve
    effectiveness and find efficiencies. The Navy Reserve has accepted that
    challenge and promises the members of this committee that we will
    continue to do just that--examine every facet of our operation, to
    support the fleet, and to accelerate our Navy's advantages while
    providing the best value to the American taxpayer.

        Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY,
                COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE, UNITED
                STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE
        General McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, good morning. Like my
    colleagues, it is an honor for me to appear. As you have noted,
    this will be the last time I appear, at least in uniform. I
    hope to remain engaged in these issues.
        But I am here on behalf of the men and women of the Marine
    Corps Reserve and I am extraordinarily proud of what they have
    done. We have mobilized over 95 percent of the Marine Corps
    Reserve units; 98 percent of those we have mobilized have
    served in combat, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have
    sustained, unfortunately, a share of casualties, but, as you
    have heard, they, like their counterparts in the Army and the
    Navy and the Air Force, have served shoulder to shoulder with
    the active component and have done so with great distinction.
        Our recruiting remains strong. Where our ranks are filled
    we are making our recruiting numbers. Our retention numbers are
    slightly above the historic average. I believe that is because
    of, not in spite of, the service that they have been called
    upon to perform. The kind of men and women that we have
    recruited seek service and they seek an opportunity to serve in
    combat, and they have had that opportunity.
        What I owe them as their commander is to continue to ensure
    that they can train and be appropriately equipped, so that when
    they are called upon the next time they can return to service.
    The only way we will retain the right kind of people, the only
    way we will recruit the right kind of people, is to provide
    them with an opportunity to serve in combat-ready units. So
    that is our effort and we are very appreciative of what the
    committee and the Senate, the Congress, have done to enable us,
    and we hope for your continued support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the
    Committee, it is my 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 continues to be ``Ready, Willing, and Able.'' We remain
    firmly committed to warfighting excellence. The support of Congress and
    the American people has been indispensable to our success in the Global
    War on Terrorism. 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 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 continued support.

                        YOUR MARINE CORPS RESERVE TODAY

        The last 4 years have demonstrated the Marine Corps Reserve is
    truly a full partner of the Total Force Marine Corps. I have been the
    Commander of Marine Forces Reserve since June 2, 2001 and as I prepare
    for retirement this summer, I can assure you the Marine Corps Reserve
    still remains totally committed to continuing the rapid and efficient
    activation of combat-ready ground, air, and logistics units to augment
    and reinforce the active component in the Global War on Terrorism.
    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 U.S., supporting all aspects of the Global War on Terrorism.
        ``Train, Activate, Deploy'' has always been a foundation of the
    Marine Corps Reserve. Following that foundation, your Reserve is
    maintained as a pre-trained, balanced and sustainable force capable of
    rapid deployment into a combat environment.
        Reserve Marines continuously train to maintain high levels of
    combat readiness. Because we currently have the luxury of scheduled
    rotations, we utilize a 48-day activate to deploy schedule. A demanding
    Mobilization and Operational Readiness Deployment Test program
    eliminates the need for post activation certification upon activation.
    The 48-day schedule includes a 9-day Security and Stability Operations
    training package and completes the preparations for the Marine Reserve
    unit to deploy. The impact of the ``Train, Activate, Deploy''
    foundation is the seamless integration with the Gaining Force Commander
    of a combat capable active duty Marine unit.
        Your Marine Corps Reserve is pre-trained-able to activate, spin-up,
    deploy, redeploy, take leave and deactivate all within 12 months.
    Twelve-month activations with a 7-month deployment have helped sustain
    the Reserve force and contributed to the regeneration of our units. In
    so doing, the Reserves follow the same 7-month deployment policy as our
    active forces. This activation/deployment construct has allowed the
    Marine Corps to maximize management of the Reserve force, maintain unit
    integrity, and lessen the burden on Marine Corps families by
    maintaining predictable deployments while allowing adequate dwell time
    between unit deployments.
        As of early March 2005, over 13,000 Reserve Marines were activated
    in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and
    Horn of Africa operations. Of these Marines, approximately 11,500 were
    serving in combat-proven ground, aviation and service support units led
    by Reserve Marine officers and non-commissioned officers. The remaining
    1,600 Reserve Marines were 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 36,000 Reserve
    Marines, and more than 95 percent of all Marine Forces Reserve units.
        The Global War on Terrorism highlights our need to remain flexible
    and adaptive as a force. During the aftermath of 9/11 and the
    commencement of the Global War on Terrorism, the Marine Corps Reserve
    was the force the Marine Corps needed. As new war fighting requirements
    have emerged, we have adapted our units and personnel to meet them,
    such as with the rapid formation of security forces from existing
    units, or the creation of provisional Civil Affairs Groups. We reviewed
    our Total Force Structure during 2004, and laid the blueprint for
    refining the force from 2005 to 2006. In the coming years, the Marine
    Corps Reserve will be increasing intelligence, security, civil affairs,
    mortuary affairs and light armored reconnaissance capabilities, while
    we pare down some of our heavier, less required capabilities, such as
    tanks and artillery. However, we are adjusting less than 8 percent of
    Reserve end strength to support these new capabilities required for the
    war on terrorism. By reassessing and fine-tuning our Reserve Force, we
    are enhancing our ability to provide required war fighting
    capabilities. Although adjusted, the Reserve Force will continue to
    provide a strong Marine Corps presence in our communities.
        Your Marine Corps Reserve continues to prove we are ``Ready,
    Willing and Able'' to accomplish our primary mission of augmenting and
    reinforcing the active component with fully trained, combat capable
    Marines.

                              RETURN ON INVESTMENT

        The Marine Corps is committed to and confident in the Total Force
    Concept as evidenced by the overwhelming success of Marine Reserve
    units serving in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Activated
    Marine Reserve units and individuals are seamlessly integrating into
    forward deployed Marine Expeditionary Forces and regularly demonstrate
    their combat effectiveness. The recent efforts of your Reserve Marines
    are best illustrated in the following examples of a few of the many
    Reserve units supporting the war effort:
    Force Units
        Fourth Civil Affairs Group (4th CAG), commanded by Col. John R.
    Ballard USMCR, a professor at the Naval War College, and assisted by
    his senior enlisted advisor, Sgt. Maj. Joseph A. Staudt, a construction
    appraiser and project manager, was instrumental in rebuilding
    communities from the ground up in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. They
    assisted in everything from recreating the infrastructure for a city or
    town, to clearing unexploded ordinance and equipment left by the Iraqi
    army from school buildings. Fourth CAG was instrumental in projects
    such as supporting local elections in Fallujah and assisting the Iraqis
    in reopening schools in Al Kut. Just last month, 4th CAG ended its tour
    of duty in Iraq and were replaced by 5th Civil Affairs Group (5th CAG),
    commanded by Col. Steve McKinley USMCR, a retired bonds salesman from
    Wachovia, with the assistance of Sgt. Maj. John A. Ellis, a Baltimore
    fireman.
    Fourth Marine Division
        First Battalion, 23d Marines (1/23), under the command of Lt. Col.
    Gregory D. Stevens USMCR, a building contractor in southern California,
    supported by his senior enlisted advisor, Sgt. Maj. David A. Miller, a
    military academy instructor, were the first to enter and assess the
    threat in Hit, Iraq last year and won decisive battles with insurgents
    in that city. Sgt. Herbert B. Hancock, a sniper from 1/23 was credited
    with the longest confirmed kill in Iraq during the battle for Fallujah,
    taking out insurgent mortarmen from a distance of over 1,000 yards.
    From October 2004 to January 2005, the Mobile Assault Platoons of 1/23
    patrolled the supply routes around the Haditha Dam area in Iraq. With
    the aid of long-range optics, night vision and thermal imaging scopes,
    they vigilantly watched day and night for insurgent activity, while
    remaining unobserved. During their last month in Iraq, the efforts of
    the Mobile Assault Platoons caused an 85 percent decrease in the total
    number of mines and IEDs utilized in the Haditha Dam area.
        Second Battalion, 24th Marines, commanded by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith
    USMCR, an Indiana state policeman, with Sgt. Maj. Garry L. Payne, a
    business owner, as his senior enlisted advisor, supported the 24th
    Marine Expeditionary Unit (24th MEU) by bringing a measure of security
    to northern Babil Province. Marines with law-enforcement background
    were so common in the battalion that even the smallest units boasted of
    having a few police officers. Many law-enforcement strategies and
    tactics employed in the Chicago area were mimicked in Iraq such as
    executing raids, handling heavy traffic jams and conducting crime scene
    analysis. The battalion even used police procedures in its intelligence
    battle, comparing anti-Iraqi forces to criminals back home. As Chief
    Warrant Officer-5 Jim M. Roussell, an intelligence officer and 28-year
    veteran of the Chicago Police Department stated, ``There are a lot of
    similarities between street gangs and the guys we're fighting out
    here.'' Working alongside Iraqi security forces, the Marines rounded up
    nearly 900 criminals, thugs and terrorists and seized more than 75,000
    munitions to make the local area safer for the Iraqi residents.
    Fourth Force Service Support Group
        Throughout my tenure as Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, I have
    made repeated visits to Marines serving abroad. During a recent trip to
    Iraq with my senior enlisted advisor, Sgt. Maj. Robin W. Dixon, I
    visited our Marines from Fourth Force Service Support Group (4th FSSG)
    who were serving with 1st FSSG. I can confidently state that the
    Reserve Marines were fully integrated with 1st FSSG and were meeting
    all the challenges to ensure Marines throughout Iraq had everything
    from food and medicine to mail and ammunition. They willingly braved
    dangerous roads filled with IEDs to ensure supplies arrive at their
    destination. Our Marines on the front lines can execute their tasks
    superbly because their needs back at the base camp are all being met by
    the FSSG Marines. From refueling to performing major overhauls on
    vehicles, to moving the fuel and materials of war from the rear to the
    front, to distributing ``beans, bullets, and bandages''--the FSSG takes
    care of all the needs of their fellow Marines.
        The most sobering task that the Reserve Marines from 4th FSSG
    perform in Iraq is Mortuary Affairs, which is predominately a Reserve
    mission. Chief Warrant Officer-2 Anthony L. High, the Officer in Charge
    of Mortuary Affairs, ensures that the remains of the fallen in Iraq
    return home with the proper dignity and respect they deserve for the
    price they have paid for our country. Even enemies killed in Fallujah
    were given burials commensurate with the customs and procedures of
    their native country and religious beliefs, winning approval of Iraqi
    religious leaders.
    Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing
        The accomplishments of Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron
    452 (VMGR-452), of Marine Aircraft Group 49, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing,
    under the command of Lt. Col. Bradley S. James USMCR, a United Airlines
    pilot, supported by his senior enlisted advisor, Sgt. Maj. Leland H.
    Hilt Jr., an auditor for the IRS, show the overwhelming commitment we
    impose on our Reserve Marines. VMGR-452 has been activated twice since
    9/11. A detachment from VMGR-452 was activated in January 2002 to
    support Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The remainder of the squadron
    was activated later in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom I (OIF-I).
    Upon deactivation, the squadron immediately reverted back into their
    normal high operational tempo, supporting reserve missions worldwide.
    The squadron supported the full spectrum of KC-130 missions that
    included aerial delivery in support of Special Operations Command,
    performing multiple aerial refueling missions in support of the Fleet
    Marine Force and the U.S. Army, logistics runs in support of Marine
    Forces Europe and deployed units in Djibouti, and support of a Hawaii
    Combined Arms Exercise. The entire squadron was reactivated in June
    2004 and deployed in August to Al Asad Air Base, Al Anbar Province,
    Iraq. They quickly began combat operations in support of First Marine
    Expeditionary Force (I MEF). The squadron conducted numerous types of
    tactical missions, to include logistics support, Fixed Wing Aerial
    Refueling and radio relay throughout several countries to include Iraq,
    Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey and Italy. On November 7, when Operation
    Phantom Fury commenced in Fallujah, VMGR-452 found its versatile KC-130
    platforms greatly needed for a variety of missions. The squadron flew
    341 sorties, logged 864.9 flight hours, transported 1,273,150 pounds of
    cargo and 1,980 personnel, and offloaded 4,324,300 pounds of fuel to
    502 receivers during the operation. After Operation Phantom Fury, the
    squadron conducted its most important mission of the deployment--the
    movement of Iraqi election officials during Operation Citadel II.
    During this operation, the squadron transported over 1,200 Iraqi
    election officials from An Najaf to Al Taqaddum and Mosul so that they
    would be in place before the election on January 30. Following the
    elections, the squadron transported the election officials back to An
    Najaf in less than six hours by running three fully loaded KC-130's
    continuously. February saw the squadron surpass 3000 mishap-free flight
    hours for the deployment.

                             ACTIVATION PHILOSOPHY

        Sustaining the force has been consistent with Total Force Marine
    Corps planning guidance. This guidance was based on a 12-month
    involuntary activation with a 7-month deployment, followed by a period
    of dwell time and, if required, a second 12-month involuntary
    reactivation and subsequent 7-month deployment. This force management
    practice was designed to enhance the warfighting and sustainment
    capability of the Marine Forces Reserve by providing trained, well-
    balanced and cohesive units ready for combat. We view this both an
    efficient and effective use of our Reserve Marines' 24-month cumulative
    activation as it serves to preserve Reserve Units to sustain the long-
    term nature of the GWOT that will require future Reserve force
    commitments.

                               ACTIVATION IMPACT

        As of January 2005, the Marine Corps Reserve began activating
    approximately 3,000 Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) Unit Marines
    in support of the next Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation and 500 SMCR
    Unit 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 means of livelihood. In the past 2
    years, 933 Reserve Marines exceeded 400 days deployed time. In total,
    approximately 3,900 Reserve Marines have been activated more than once;
    about 2,500 of whom are currently activated. Information from March
    2005 indicates that approximately 65 percent of the current unit
    population and 47 percent of the current IMA population have been
    activated at least once. About 1 percent of our current Individual
    Ready Reserve (IRR) population deployed in support of OIF/OEF. If you
    include the number of Marines who deployed as an active component and
    have since transferred to the IRR, the number reaches 31 percent. This
    is worth particular note as the IRR provides us needed depth--an added
    dimension to our capability. Volunteers from the IRR and from other
    Military Occupational Specialties, such as artillery, have been cross-
    trained to reinforce identifiable critical specialties.
        Although supporting the Global War on Terrorism 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, full-time requirements with Reserve Marines. In
    fiscal year 2004, the Marine Corps executed 947 work-years of ADSW at a
    cost of $49.1 million. Continued support and funding for this critical
    program will enhance flexibility thereby ensuring our Total Force
    requirements are met.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        Our readiness priority is the support and sustainment of our
    forward deployed forces and, secondly, ensuring units slated to deploy
    in follow-on rotations possess adequate levels of equipment for
    training. Currently, the Marine Corps has approximately 30 percent of
    its ground equipment and 25 percent of its aviation equipment forward
    deployed. In certain critical, low-density items, this percentage is
    closer to 50 percent. This equipment has been sourced from the active
    component, Marine Forces Reserve, the Maritime Prepositioned Force as
    well as equipment from Marine Corps Logistics Command stores and war
    reserves. Primarily, our contributed major items of equipment remain in
    theater and rotating Marine forces fall in on the in-theater assets. In
    some cases where extraordinary use has resulted in the inordinate
    deterioration of equipment (such as the Corps' Light Armored Vehicles),
    equipment rotations have been performed as directed and managed by
    Headquarters, Marine Corps.
        Maintaining current readiness levels will require continued support
    as our equipment continues to age at a pace exceeding replacement peace
    time rates. The Global War on Terrorism equipment usage rates average
    eight to one over normal peacetime usage due to continuous combat
    operations. This high usage rate in a harsh operating environment,
    coupled with the weight of added armor and unavoidable delays of
    scheduled maintenance due to combat, is degrading our equipment at an
    accelerated rate. If this equipment returns to CONUS, extensive service
    life extension and overhaul/rebuild programs will be required in order
    to bring this equipment back into satisfactory condition.
        Even with these wartime demands, equipment readiness rates for
    Marine Forces Reserve deployed ground equipment in the CENTCOM AOR is
    averaging 93 percent. At home, as we continue to aggressively train and
    prepare our Marines, we have maintained ground equipment readiness
    rates of 91 percent. The types of equipment held by Home Training
    Centers are the same as those held within the Active Component.
    However, the ``set'' of ground equipment presently in garrison is not
    the full equipment combat allowance for Marine Forces Reserve. To reach
    the level of full equipment combat allowance for Marine Forces Reserve
    would require us to draw ground equipment from other allowances and
    inventory options across the Marine Corps. Additionally, due to the
    Marine Corps' cross-leveling efforts of equipment inventories to
    support home station shortfalls resulting from equipment deployed in
    support of the Global War On Terrorism, Marine Forces Reserve will
    experience some equipment shortfalls of communication and electronic
    equipment. This specific equipment type shortfall will be approximately
    10 percent across the Force in most areas, and somewhat greater for
    certain low density ``big box'' type equipment sets. Also, an infantry
    battalion's worth of equipment originating from Marine Forces Reserve
    remains in support of deployed forces in the CENTCOM AOR. Although the
    equipment shortfalls will not preclude sustainment training within the
    Force, this equipment availability is not optimal.
    Strategic Ground Equipment Working Group
        For the past year, Headquarters, Marine Corps Installations and
    Logistics has chaired the Strategic Ground Equipment Working Group
    (SGEWG). The mission of this organization is to best position the
    Corps' equipment to support the needs of the deployed Global War on
    Terrorism forces, the Corps' strategic programs and training of non-
    deployed forces. My staff has been fully engaged in this process and
    the results have been encouraging for Marine Forces Reserve, leading to
    an increase in overall Supply Readiness of approximately 5 percent in
    most equipment categories. The efforts of the SGEWG, combined with the
    efforts of my staff to redistribute equipment to support non-deployed
    units, have resulted in continued training capability for the reserve
    forces back home.
    Individual Combat Clothing and Equipment, Individual Protective
            Equipment
        In order to continue seamless integration into the active
    component, my ground component priorities are the sustained improvement
    of Individual Combat Clothing and Equipment, Individual Protective
    Equipment and overall equipment readiness. I am pleased to report that
    every Reserve Marine deployed over the past year in support of
    Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, along with
    those currently deployed into harm's way, were fully equipped with the
    most current Individual Clothing/Combat Equipment and Individual
    Protective Equipment. Your continued support of current budget
    initiatives will continue to properly equip our most precious assets--
    our individual Marines.
    Critical Asset Rapid Distribution Facility
        In order to ensure equipment is available to our deploying forces,
    I created the Marine Forces Reserve Materiel Prepositioning Program and
    designated my Special Training Allowance Pool (which traditionally held
    such items as cold weather gear) as the Critical Asset Rapid
    Distribution Facility (CARDF). The CARDF has been designated as the
    primary location for all newly fielded items of Individual Clothing and
    Combat Equipment for issue to Marine Forces Reserve. Equipment such as
    the Improved Load Bearing Equipment, Lightweight Helmet and Improved
    First Aid Kit has been sent to the CARDF for secondary distribution to
    deploying units.
    Training Allowance
        For Principle End Items (PEIs), Marine Forces Reserve units have
    established Training Allowances (on average approximately 80 percent of
    their established Table of Equipment). This equipment represents the
    minimum needed by the unit to maintain the training readiness necessary
    to deploy, while at the same time is still within their ability to
    maintain under routine conditions. 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. Of course, this concept requires the
    support of the service to ensure that the ``delta'' between a unit's
    Training Allowance and Table of Equipment (that gear necessary to fully
    conduct a combat mission) is available in the event of deployment.
    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 PEIs necessary to conduct their
    mission.
    Modernization
        We are currently engaged in a two-pronged equipment programmatic
    strategy--resetting today's Force with operational equipment and
    determining the equipment requirements of your Future Force. I am
    extremely pleased to report to you that your Marine Reserve Component
    continues to evolve and adapt to best prepare and meet the spectrum of
    threats. Some of the most noteworthy accomplishments are those
    associated with the Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group (FSRG).
    As part of a Total Force effort, the Marine Corps Reserve is
    transforming underutilized legacy units into new units with higher
    threat-relevant capabilities while providing operational tempo relief
    in high-demand areas. These new units include an Intelligence Support
    Battalion, an Anti-Terrorist Battalion and two Light Armored
    Reconnaissance Companies.
        The establishment of a Reserve Intelligence Support Battalion,
    presently underway, will enhance command and control while
    simultaneously establishing additional reserve component intelligence
    structure and capabilities. This initiative places Reserve Marine
    intelligence detachments at Joint Reserve Intelligence Centers (JRICs)
    throughout the continental United States, providing enhanced ``reach
    back'' through JRIC connectivity. Additionally, the ISB will enhance
    the capability to provide task-organized, all-source intelligence
    detachments to augment forward-deployed MAGTFs.
        The 4th Marine Division's new Anti Terrorism Battalion will provide
    designated commanders with rapidly deployable, specially trained and
    sustainable forces that are capable of detecting terrorism, conducting
    activities to deter terrorism, defending designated facilities and
    conducting crisis response.
        Finally, two new Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) Companies will
    increase the number of Reserve LAR Companies from four to six, thus
    supporting the equipping of units for future OIF rotations, adding much
    needed depth, and affording the combatant commander with enhanced
    maneuver capability. Light Armored Vehicles (LAV) from the four
    existing units will be redistributed among the six new LAR Companies to
    meet initial needs. However, internal LAV redistribution will not
    provide sufficient assets to maintain skill proficiency and deployment
    readiness, particularly for Marines just completing formal LAV training
    and joining their Reserve LAR units. Presently, both new LAR Companies
    are converting from two Tank Companies being divested as a result of
    FSRG, and personnel to man the new LAR Companies are available and have
    commenced formal LAV training.
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation
        The Marine Corps Reserve appreciates past Congressional support
    provided under the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation
    (NGREA), an account that provides extraordinary leverage in fielding
    critical equipment to your Guard and Reserves. In fiscal year 2005,
    NGREA provided $50 million ($10 million for OIF/OEF requirements, and
    $40 million for Title III procurement requirements), enabling us to
    robustly respond to the pressing needs of the individual Marine, Total
    Force and Combatant Commanders. This funding procures
    Counterintelligence HUMINT equipment suites, various communications
    gear (PRC-117F, PRC-150, Integrated Intra Squad Radios), laser target
    designators, night vision devices, Advanced Combat Optic Gunsight
    (ACOG) 432 scopes, simulators, AH-1W Aircraft Survivability Equipment,
    CH-46 lightweight seats, and many more war-fighting essential end
    items.
        Highlighting selected items, NGREA enabled the procurement of the
    Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer--Marine (VCCT-M), a cognitive skills
    simulator that provides realistic convoy crew training and incidental
    driver training to your Marines. The first of these systems will be
    deployed to Naval Station Seal Beach, home site to 5th Battalion, 14th
    Marine Regiment, to assist in their preparation for deployment to Iraq.
    Another device procured through NGREA is the Medium Tactical Vehicle
    Replacement Training Simulator, a combined operator and maintenance
    training system that supports our new medium tactical vehicle.
    Additionally, NGREA afforded us the opportunity to purchase 1,175 TA-
    31F Advanced Combat Optic Gunsights (ACOG) 432 scopes. Marine Corps
    Program Managers have worked directly with the manufacturer in order
    for Marine Forces Reserve deploying units to receive the ACOG scopes
    before departing their home training center. I am also pleased to
    report that we have a combat capable F/A-18A+ squadron currently
    deployed as a direct result of previous years' NGREA funding for F/A-
    18A ECP-583 upgrades. Marine Fighter/Attack Squadron-142 has already
    seen action in Iraq. In summation, I can state without hesitation that
    NGREA is extremely vital to the Marine Corps reserve and that your
    Marines and Sailors are reaping the benefits both here and in theater.
        My top modernization priorities looking forward and as described in
    the fiscal year 2006 National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report and
    other documents, include additional Light Armored Vehicles, PRC-117
    radios, LAV Product Improvement Program, Initial Issue equipment (light
    weight helmets, outer tactical vests, Small Arm Protective Inserts
    (SAPI) plates), PRC-150 radios, CH-53 Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics
    System (IMDS), and Family of Mountain and Cold Weather Clothing and
    Equipment.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Marine Forces Reserve is and will continue to be a community-based
    force. This is a fundamental strength of Marine Forces Reserve. Our
    long-range strategy is to retain that strength by maintaining our
    connection with communities in the most cost effective way. We are not,
    nor do we want to be, limited exclusively to large metropolitan areas
    nor consolidated into a few isolated enclaves, but rather we intend to
    divest Marine Corps-owned infrastructure and locate our units in Joint
    Reserve Training Centers throughout the country. Marine Forces Reserve
    units are currently located at 185 sites in 48 states, the District of
    Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 35 sites are owned or leased by the Marine
    Corps Reserve, 150 are either tenant or joint sites. Fifty-four percent
    of the Reserve centers we occupy are more than 30 years old, and of
    these, 41 are over 50 years old. The fiscal year 2006 budget fully
    funds sustainment of these facilities and we are working through a
    backlog of restoration and modernization projects at centers in several
    states.
        The age of our infrastructure means that much of it was built
    before Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) was a major
    consideration in design and construction. These facilities require AT/
    FP resolution through structural improvements, relocation, replacement
    or the acquisition of additional stand-off distance. We appreciate the
    Congressional support provided for our Military construction program in
    fiscal year 2005 as it enables us to construct modern Amphibious
    Assault Vehicle maintenance facilities in Gulfport, Mississippi;
    Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, and to replace the Reserve
    Center in Wilmington, North Carolina, a wood frame structure
    constructed in 1939. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes the
    replacement of the Reserve Centers in Charleston, South Carolina, a
    complex of buildings dating to 1942, and Mobile, Alabama. Other older
    Reserve Centers programmed for replacement include Dayton, Ohio;
    Memphis, Tennessee; Newport News, Virginia and Fresno, California.
        Maintaining adequate facilities is critical to training that
    supports our readiness and sends a strong message to our Marines and
    Sailors about the importance of their service. With the changes in
    Force structure mentioned earlier, extensive facilities upgrades are
    required at a few locations. Our top priority sites are San Diego,
    California; Windy Hill (Marietta), Georgia; and Camp Upshur (Quantico),
    Virginia.
    BRAC 2005
        We look at BRAC 2005 as an opportunity to realize our long-range
    strategic infrastructure goals through efficient joint ventures and
    increased training center utilization without jeopardizing our
    community presence. We have integrated our force structure changes into
    our BRAC efforts to the greatest extent possible. In cooperation with
    other reserve components, notably the Army Reserve and the Army
    National Guard, we are working toward Reserve basing solutions that
    further reduce restoration and modernization backlogs and AT/FP
    vulnerability.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Like the active component, Marine Corps Reserve units primarily
    rely upon a first term 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 2004, 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 2004, the Selected Marine Corps 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. An additional 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 tools
    that will sustain the Force in the years ahead.
        Support to the Global War on Terrorism has reached the point where
    80 percent of the current Marine Corps Reserve leadership has deployed
    at least once. Nevertheless, the Marine Corps Reserve is currently
    achieving higher retention rates than the benchmark average from the
    last three fiscal years. As of January, fiscal year 2005, the OSD
    attrition statistics for Marine Corps Reserve unit officers is 10.9
    percent compared to the current benchmark average of 15.8 percent. For
    the same time period, Reserve unit enlisted attrition is 6.4 percent
    compared to 8.5 percent average.
        Good retention goes hand-in-hand with the successes of our
    recruiters. In fiscal year 2004, the Marine Corps Reserve achieved 100
    percent of its recruiting goal for non-prior service recruiting (6,165)
    and exceeded its goal for prior service recruiting (2,083). For our
    reserve component, junior officer recruiting remains the most
    challenging area. We are successfully 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 through increased recruiting
    efforts and increased active duty command emphasis on Reserve
    opportunities and participation. 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. We appreciate
    your continued support and funding of incentives such as this, which
    offset the cost that officers must often incur in traveling to billets
    at Marine Corps Reserve locations nationwide.

                                QUALITY OF LIFE

        Our future success will rely on the Marine Corps' most valuable
    asset--our Marines and their families. We, Marine Forces Reserve,
    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. Arming our Marines and their families with information on
    their education benefits, available childcare programs, family
    readiness resources and the health care benefits available to them,
    provides them with unlimited potential for their quality of life.
    Education
        Last year I testified that there were no laws offering academic and
    financial protections for Reserve military members who are college
    students. I was 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 recent 2005
    legislation protecting a military member's college education
    investments and status when called to duty.
        More than 1,000 Marine Forces Reserve Marines chose to use Tuition
    Assistance in fiscal year 2004 in order to help finance their
    education. This Tuition Assistance came to more than $1.9 million in
    fiscal year 2004 for more than 3,700 courses. Many of these Marines
    were deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, and took their courses via
    distance learning courses. In this way Tuition Assistance helped to
    mitigate the financial burden of education and maintained progress in
    the Marine's planned education schedule. 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 it is a key retention
    and recruiting tool and an important part of our Commandant's guidance
    to enhance the education of all Marines. House Resolution 4200, passed
    by both the House and Senate in October 2004 authorized Montgomery G.I.
    Bill benefits for certain Reserve and National Guard service members
    and increased the benefits for others. I heartily thank you for this
    initiative and look forward to it's anticipated implementation by the
    Department of Veterans Affairs in September 2005.
    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 the joint initiative funded by the Department of Defense
    and announced on March 3, 2005 by 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 Reunion, 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.
        MCCS 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, legal
    issues, 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 uses 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 to ensure a team approach. Follow-up services are then
    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.
    Beginning April 2005, TRICARE Reserve Select will be implemented,
    providing eligible Guard and Reserve members 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. Other key provisions include
    coverage for Selected Reserves after an activation, which provides a
    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 one 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 DOD to protect the beneficiary by paying the 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 Remote 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. I would like to also ask Congress and
    this committee for their support of the new fiscal year 2005
    legislation that includes improvements. 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. It is at the darkest hour for our
    Marine families that our support is most invaluable. By virtue of our
    dispersed posture, Marine Forces Reserve site support staffs are
    uniquely qualified to accomplish the majority of all Marine Corps
    casualty notifications and provide the associated family assistance.
    Currently, Marine Forces Reserve conducts approximately 92 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 to our families that we treat with more
    importance. However, the duties of our casualty assistance officers go
    well beyond notification. We ensure that 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. The Marine Corps Reserve also provides
    support for military funerals for our veterans. The Marines at our
    reserve sites performed 7,621 funerals in calendar year.
        The Marine Corps is also committed to supporting the wishes of
    seriously injured Marines, allowing them to remain on active duty if
    they desire or making their transition home as smooth as possible.
    Leveraging the organizational network and strengths of the Marine for
    Life program, we are currently implementing an Injured Support program
    to assist injured Marines, Sailors serving with Marines, and their
    families. The goal is to bridge the gap between military medical care
    and the Department of Veterans Affairs--providing continuity of support
    through transition and assistance for several years afterwards. Planned
    features of the program include: advocacy for Marines, Sailors and
    their families within the Marine Corps and with external agencies; pre
    and post-Service separation case management; assistance in working with
    physical evaluation boards; an interactive web site for disability/
    benefit information; an enhanced Marine Corps Community Services ``One
    Source'' capability for 24/7/365 information; facilitation assistance
    with Federal hiring preferences; coordination via an assigned Marine
    liaison with veterans, public, and private organizations providing
    support to our seriously injured; improved Department of Veterans
    Affairs handling of Marine cases; and development of any required
    proposals for legislative changes to better support our Marines and
    Sailors. This program began limited operations in early January 2005.
    We are able to support these vitally important programs because of the
    wide geographic dispersion of our units.
    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 continues to
    provide support for 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 eighty 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. Assistance from career retention specialists and
    transitional recruiters helps transitioning Marines tremendously 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 a 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. We
    support incentives for employers who support their activated Guard and
    Reserve employees such as the Small Business Military Reservist Tax
    Credit Act, which allows small business employers a credit against
    income tax for employees who participate in the military reserve
    component and are called to active duty.

                                   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 war
    fighting equipment has directly affected the American lives saved on
    the battlefield. However, as I stated earlier, much of the same
    fighting equipment throughout the force has deteriorated rapidly due to
    our current operational tempo. In this regard, I fully support the
    fiscal year 2005 Supplemental request.
        Although we currently maintain a high level of readiness, we will
    need significant financial assistance to refresh and/or replace our war
    fighting equipment in the very near future. Also, as the Marine Forces
    Reserve adjusts its force structure over the next 2 years, several
    facilities will need conversions to create proper training environments
    for the new units. Funding for these conversions would greatly assist
    our war fighting capabilities.
        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 would not have been able to attain our
    current level of deployed readiness while providing in-theater
    operational capabilities without your 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, activations and deployments
    place great stress on these honorable Americans. Your continued support
    for ``quality of life'' initiatives will help sustain Reserve Marines
    in areas such as employer incentives, educational benefits, medical
    care and family care.
        My time as Commander, Marine Forces Reserve has been tremendously
    rewarding. Testifying before congressional committees and subcommittees
    has always been a great pleasure, as it has afforded 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.

        Senator Stevens. General Bradley.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY, CHIEF,
                AIR FORCE RESERVE, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
        General Bradley. Senator Stevens, sir, it is an honor to be
    here, a privilege to represent the men and women of the Air
    Force Reserve Command before you today. I want to thank you. I
    have provided a written statement, but orally I want to thank
    you for the generous support that you have given us over the
    years, and solicit your continued support for us.
        We have so many thousands of very hard-working young men
    and women serving our Air Force, serving our Nation, helping it
    do its job around the world. I am very proud of them.
    Representing our enlisted force, I have with me today my
    Command Chief Master Sergeant, Chief Master Sergeant Jack
    Winsett with me here today in the hearing room. He gives me
    great advice and counsel about taking care of our enlisted
    force, the force who really help us get our job done.
        Again, we thank you for the great support you have given us
    and we look forward to your questions, sir. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        [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 your continued support, which has helped your Air Force Reserve
    address vital recruiting, retention, modernization, and infrastructure
    needs. Your passage of last year's pay and quality of life initiatives
    sent a clear message to our citizen Airmen that their efforts are
    appreciated and supported by the American people, and also by those of
    you in the highest positions of government. Wherever you find the
    United States Air Force, at home or abroad, you will find the active
    and Reserve members working side-by-side, trained to one tier of
    readiness, seamlessly integrated into a military force that is READY
    NOW!

                                  TOTAL FORCE

        The Air Force Reserve (AFR) continues to address new challenges in
    2005. Although Partial Mobilization persists, demobilizations have
    increased significantly. In spite of the strains that mobilization has
    placed on the personal and professional lives of our Reserve members,
    volunteerism continues to be a significant means of contribution.
    Volunteerism is the preferred method of fulfilling requirements for
    future Global War On Terror (GWOT) actions. While dedicated members of
    the Air Force Reserve continue to meet validated operational
    requirements, the AFR, in cooperation with the Air Force Personnel
    Requirements division is exploring ways to enhance volunteerism,
    including use of volunteer Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) members.
    Recruiting and retention of quality service members are a top priority
    for the Air Force Reserve and competition for these members among other
    services, as well as within the civilian community has reached an all-
    time high.
    Recruiting
        In fiscal year 2004, and for the last 4 consecutive years, Air
    Force Reserve Command (AFRC) exceeded its recruiting goal. This
    remarkable feat is achieved through the outstanding efforts of our
    recruiters and with the superb assistance of our Reserve members who
    help tell our story of public service to the American people. Despite
    the long-term effects of high Operations and Personnel (OPS/PERS)
    Tempo, AFRC only fell short of its fiscal year 2004 end-strength by .7
    percent, reaching 99.37 percent, or merely 578 assigned short of
    congressionally funded requirements.
        Recruiting continues to face significant challenges. The pool of
    active duty separatees continues to shrink due to force reductions over
    the last decade, and the competition for these members has become even
    keener. The active duty is intensifying its efforts in retention and
    the National Guard is competing for these assets as well. Additionally,
    the current high OPS/PERS Tempo and a perceived likelihood of
    activation and deployment are being routinely cited as significant
    reasons why separating members are declining to choose continuing
    military service in the Reserve. These issues further contribute to the
    civilian sector's ability to attract these members away from military
    service. One consequence of the reduced success in attracting
    separating members from active duty is the need to make up this
    difference through attracting non-prior service (NPS) members.
    Historically, Reserve Recruiting accesses close to 25 percent of
    eligible separating active duty Air Force members (i.e. no break in
    service), which accounts for a significant portion of annual
    accessions. While having enough Basic Military Training and Technical
    Training School quotas has long been an issue, the increased dependence
    on NPS accessions strains these requirements even further. To meet
    training requirements, 4,000 training slots per year are now allocated
    and funded for the Air Force Reserve.
        A new forecasting tool developed by our training division allows
    everyone, from unit level to wing training managers, to Numbered Air
    Force (NAF) and AFRC Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) functional
    managers, to participate in the forecasting with the Chief of
    Recruiting Services providing final approval.
        Finally, with overall end-strength of the Air Force Reserve dipping
    below 100 percent, some career-fields are undermanned. In order to
    avoid possible readiness concerns, recruiters will continue to meet the
    challenge of guiding applicants to critical job specialties.
        The Reserve is taking advantage of an active duty Force Shaping
    initiative. Beginning in fiscal year 2004 and ending in fiscal year
    2005, the Air Force will offer active duty members the opportunity to
    use the Palace Chase program to change components. The Air Force
    Reserve is using this opportunity to access prior service members with
    critical career skills. In fiscal year 2004, 1,200 active duty members
    utilized Palace Chase to join the Air Reserve Component, with over half
    selecting the Air Force Reserve. This number may grow in fiscal year
    2005.
        For recruits who have not served in a military component, the
    development of the ``Split Training Option'' which began in October
    2003, provides a flexible tool for recruiters to use in scheduling
    Basic Military Training classes and Technical School classes at non-
    consecutive times.
    Retention
        Retention in both officer and enlisted categories has remained
    strong. Fiscal year 2004 ended with officer retention at 92.3 percent
    and overall enlisted retention at 88.4 percent. These retention rates
    are in line with averages over the last 5 years.
        As the Reserve Component (RC) continues to surge to meet
    operational requirements necessary for the successful prosecution of
    the GWOT, we continue to examine existing laws and policies that govern
    enlisted incentives and related compensation issues. The reserve
    enlisted bonus program is a major contributor to attract and retain
    both unit and individual mobilization augmentee members in those
    critical unit type code tasked career fields. To enhance retention of
    our reservists, we work to ensure relevant compensation statutes
    reflect the growing reliance on the RC to accomplish active duty
    missions and provide compensatory equity between members of both
    components. The reenlistment bonus authority of the active and reserve
    components is one area we are working to change. We continue to explore
    the feasibility of expanding the bonus program to our Air Reserve
    Technician (ART) members. In addition, the Aviation Continuation Pay
    (ACP), the Career Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay (CEFIP) and Aircrew
    Incentive Pay (ACIP) continue to be offered to retain our rated assets,
    both officer and enlisted.
        The Reserve has made many strides in increasing education benefits
    for our members, offering 100 percent tuition assistance for those
    individuals pursuing an undergraduate degree and continuing to pay 75
    percent for graduate degrees. We also employ the services of the
    Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) for
    College Level Examination Program (CLEP) testing for all reservists and
    their spouses.
        We will continue to seek innovative ways to enhance retention.
    Quality of Life Initiatives
        We expanded the AFR Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) program by
    including an additional six Air Force Specialty Codes to enhance
    recruitment and retention, improve program alignment, and provide
    parity to Reserve members. Where there is Reserve strength, the
    expansion authorizes the payment of SDAP to a reservist qualifying in
    the same skill and location as their active duty counterpart. The AFR
    SDAP program has continued to evolve and improve since Secretarial
    authority removed the tour length requirement for the Air Reserve
    Component in July 2000.
        We appreciate the support provided in the fiscal year 2005 National
    Defense Authorization Act that expanded the Reserve health benefits. At
    your direction, the Department is implementing the new TRICARE Reserve
    benefits that will ensure the individual medical readiness of members
    of the Guard and Reserve, and contribute to the maintenance of an
    effective Air Force Reserve force. The Department has made permanent
    their early access to TRICARE upon notification of call-up and their
    continued access to TRICARE for 6 months following active duty service
    for both individuals and their families. We are implementing the
    TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) coverage for Air Force Reserve personnel
    and their families who meet the requirements established in law. TRS is
    a premium-based healthcare plan available for purchase by certain
    eligible members of the National Guard and Reserves who have been
    activated for a contingency operation since September 11, 2001. This
    program will serve as an important bridge for all Reserve and Guard
    members as they move back to other employment and the utilization of
    the private health care market. We believe that the design of TRS in a
    manner that supports retention and expands health benefits is creative
    and should be studied before any further adjustments are contemplated.
        A change in the Joint Federal Regulation Travel policy authorized
    expenses for retained lodging for a member who takes leave during a TDY
    contingency deployment to be paid as a reimbursable expense. This
    change became effective February 24, 2004, and has since alleviated the
    personal and financial hardship deployed reservists experience with
    regard to retaining lodging and losing per diem while taking leave.

                              FLEET MODERNIZATION

    F-16 Fighting Falcon
        Air Combat Command and AFRC are upgrading the F-16 Block 25/30/32
    in all core combat areas by installing Global Positioning System (GPS)
    navigation system, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) and NVIS
    compatible aircraft lighting, Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL),
    Target Pod integration, GPS steered ``smart weapons'', an integrated
    Electronics Suite, Pylon Integrated Dispenser System (PIDS), Digital
    Terrain System (DTS), and the ALE-50 (towed decoy system). The
    acquisition of the Litening Advanced targeting pod (ATP) marked the
    greatest jump in combat capability for AFRC F-16s in years. At the
    conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, it became apparent that the ability
    to employ precision-guided munitions, specifically laser-guided bombs,
    would be a requirement for involvement in future conflicts. Litening
    affords the capability to employ precisely targeted Laser Guided Bombs
    (LGBs) effectively in both day and night operations, any time at any
    place. This capability allows AFRC F-16s to fulfill any mission tasking
    requiring a self-designating, targeting-pod platform, providing needed
    relief for heavily tasked active-duty units. These improvements, and
    recent funding to upgrade all Litening pods to the latest version
    (Litening AT), have put AFRC F-16s at the leading edge of combat
    capability. The combination of these upgrades are unavailable in any
    other combat aircraft and make the Block 25/30/32 F-16 the most
    versatile combat asset available to a theater commander.
        Tremendous work has been done to keep the Block 25/30/32 F-16
    employable in today's complex and demanding combat environment. This
    success has been the result of far-sighted planning that has
    capitalized on emerging commercial and military technology to provide
    specific capabilities that were projected to be critical. That planning
    and vision must continue if the F-16 is to remain useable as the
    largest single community of aircraft in America's fighter force. Older
    model Block 25/30/32 F-16 aircraft require structural improvements to
    guarantee that they will last as long as they are needed. They also
    require data processor and wiring system upgrades in order to support
    employment of more sophisticated precision attack weapons. These models
    must have improved pilot displays to integrate and present the large
    volumes of data now provided to the cockpit. Additional capabilities
    are needed to eliminate fratricide and allow weapons employment at
    increased range, day or night and in all weather conditions. They must
    also be equipped with significantly improved threat detection, threat
    identification, and threat engagement systems in order to meet the
    challenges of combat survival and employment for the next 20 years.
    A/OA-10 Thunderbolt
        There are five major programs over the next 5 years to ensure the
    A/OA-10 remains a viable part of the total Air Force. The first is
    increasing its precision engagement capabilities. The A-10 was designed
    for the Cold War and is the most effective Close Air Support (CAS)
    anti-armor platform in the USAF, as demonstrated during the Persian
    Gulf War. Unfortunately, its systems have not kept pace with modern
    tactics as was proven during Operation Allied Force. Until the Litening
    II Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) was integrated, the AGM-65 (Maverick)
    was the only precision-guided weapon carried on the A-10. The
    integration method used to employ the targeting, however, was an
    interim measure and the A-10 still lacks a permanent, sustainable means
    of integrating the Litening pod into its avionics. Additionally, there
    has been a critical need for a datalink to help identify friendly
    troops and vehicles, which will reduce fratricide. There has been a
    datalink solution available for the A-10 since 1996 and is currently
    employed on the F-16. Newer weapons are being added to the Air Force
    inventory regularly, but the current avionics and computer structure
    limits the deployment of these weapons on the A-10. The Precision
    Engagement (PE) and Suite 3 programs will help correct this limitation,
    but the AFR does not expect to see PE installed until fiscal year 2008
    and it still does not include a datalink. Next, critical systems on the
    engines are causing lost sorties and increased maintenance activity.
    Several design changes to the Accessory Gearbox will extend its useful
    life and reduce the existing maintenance expense associated with the
    high removal rate. The other two programs increase the navigation
    accuracy and the overall capability of the fire control computer, both
    increasing the weapons system's overall effectiveness.
        Looking to the future, there is a requirement for a training
    package of 30 PRC-112B/C survival radios for 10th Air Force fighter,
    rescue, and special operations units. While more capable, these radios
    are also more demanding to operate and additional units are needed to
    ensure the aircrews are fully proficient in their operation.
        One of the A-10 challenges is money for upgrade in the area of high
    threat survivability. Previous efforts focused on an accurate missile
    warning system and effective, modern flares; however, a new preemptive
    covert flare system may satisfy the requirement. The A-10 can leverage
    the work done on the F-16 Radar Warning Receiver and C-130 towed decoy
    development programs to achieve a cost-effective capability. The A/OA-
    10 has a thrust deficiency in its operational environment. As taskings
    evolved, commanders have had to reduce fuel loads, limit take-off times
    to early morning hours and refuse taskings that increase gross weights
    to unsupportable limits. Forty-five AFRC A/OA-10s need upgraded
    structures and engines (two engines per aircraft plus five spares for a
    total of 95 engines).
    B-52 Stratofortress
        In the next 5 years, several major programs will be introduced to
    increase the capabilities of the B-52 aircraft. Included here are
    programs such as a Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorder and a Standard
    Flight Data Recorder, upgrades to the current Electro-Optical Viewing
    System, Chaff and Flare Improvements, and improvements to cockpit
    lighting and crew escape systems to allow use of Night Vision Goggles.
        Enhancements to the AFRC B-52 fleet currently under consideration
    are:
      --Visual clearance of the target area in support of other
            conventional munitions employment
      --Self-designation of targets, eliminating the current need for
            support aircraft to accomplish this role
      --Target coordinate updates to JDAM and WCMD, improving accuracy
      --Bomb Damage Assessment of targets
        In order to continue the viability of the B-52, several
    improvements and modifications are necessary. Although the aircraft has
    been extensively modified since its entry into the fleet, the advent of
    precision guided munitions and the increased use of the B-52 in
    conventional and Operations Other Than War (OOTW) operation require
    additional avionics modernization and changes to the weapons
    capabilities such as the Avionics Midlife Improvement, Conventional
    Enhancement Modification (CEM), and the Integrated Conventional Stores
    Management System (ICSMS). Changes in the threat environment are also
    driving modifications to the defensive suite including Situational
    Awareness Defense Improvement and the Electronic Counter Measures
    Improvement (ECMI).
        Recently, the B-52 began using the Litening Advanced Targeting Pod
    to locate targets and employ precision weapons. The targeting pod
    interface has adapted equipment from an obsolete system. The system
    works but requires an updated system to take full advantage of the
    targeting pod capability.
        Like the A-10, it also requires a datalink to help reduce
    fratricide as its mission changes to employ ordinance closer and closer
    to friendly forces. The Litening pod continues to see incremental
    improvements but needs emphasis on higher resolution sensors and a more
    powerful, yet eye-safe laser, to accommodate the extremely high
    employment altitudes (over 40,000 feet) of the B-52.
        The B-52 was originally designed to strike targets across the globe
    from launch in the United States. This capability is being repeatedly
    demonstrated, but the need for real time targeting information and
    immediate reaction to strike location changes is needed. Multiple
    modifications are addressing these needs. These integrated advanced
    communications systems will enhance the B-52 capability to launch and
    modify target locations while airborne. Other communications
    improvements are the Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) Phase 1, an
    improved ARC-210, the KY-100 Secure Voice, and a GPS-TACAN Replacement
    System (TRS).
        As can be expected with an airframe of the age of the B-52, much
    must be done to enhance its reliability and replace older, less
    reliable or failing hardware. These include a Fuel Enrichment Valve
    Modification, Engine Oil System Package, and an Engine Accessories
    Upgrade, all to increase the longevity of the airframe.
    MC-130H Talon
        In 2006, AFRC and Air Force Special Operations Command will face a
    significant decision point on whether on not to retire the Talon I.
    This largely depends on the determination of the upcoming SOF Tanker
    Requirement Study. Additionally, the MC-130H Talon II aircraft will be
    modified to air refuel helicopters. The Air Force CV-22 is being
    developed to replace the entire MH-53J Pave Low fleet, and the MC-130E
    Combat Talon l. The CV-22 program has been plagued with problems and
    delays and has an uncertain future. Ultimately, supply and demand will
    impact willingness and ability to pay for costly upgrades along with
    unforeseeable expenses required to sustain an aging weapons system.
    HC-130P/N Hercules
        Over the next 5 years, there will be primarily sustainability
    modifications to the weapons systems to allow it to maintain
    compatibility with the remainder of the C-130 fleet. In order to
    maintain currency with the active duty fleet, AFRC will accelerate the
    installation of the APN-241 as a replacement for the APN-59.
    Additionally, AFRC will receive two aircraft modified from the `E'
    configuration to the Search and Rescue configuration. All AFRC assets
    will be upgraded to provide Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) mission
    capability for C-130 combat rescue aircraft.
    HH-60G Pave Hawk
        Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Mission Area modernization strategy
    currently focuses on resolving critical weapon system capability
    shortfalls and deficiencies that pertain to the Combat Air Force's
    Combat Identification, Data Links, Night/All-Weather Capability, Threat
    Countermeasures, Sustainability, Expeditionary Operations, and Para
    rescue modernization efforts. Since the CAF's CSAR forces have several
    critical capability shortfalls that impact their ability to effectively
    accomplish their primary mission tasks today, most CSAR modernization
    programs/initiatives are concentrated in the near-term (fiscal year
    2000-2006). These are programs that:
      --Improve capability to pinpoint location and authenticate identity
            of downed aircrew members/isolated personnel
      --Provide line-of-sight and over-the-horizon high speed LPI/D data
            link capabilities for improving battle space/situational
            awareness
      --Improve Command and Control capability to rapidly respond to
            ``isolating'' incidents and efficiently/effectively task
            limited assets
      --Improve capability to conduct rescue/recovery operations at night,
            in other low illumination conditions, and in all but the most
            severe weather conditions
      --Provide warning and countermeasure capabilities against RF/IR/EO/DE
            threats
      --Enhance availability, reliability, maintainability, and
            sustainability of aircraft weapon systems
    WC/C-130J Hercules
        The current fleet is being replaced with new WC-130J models. This
    replacement allows for longer range and ensures weather reconnaissance
    capability well into the next decade. Once conversion is complete, the
    53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron will consist of 10 WC-130J's.
    Presently, there are ten WC-130J models at Keesler AFB, MS undergoing
    Qualification Test and Evaluation (QT&E). Deliveries were based on the
    resolution of deficiencies identified in test and will impact the start
    of operational testing and the achievement of Interim Operational
    Capability (IOC). Major deficiencies include: propellers (durability/
    supportability) and radar tilt and start up attenuation errors. AFRC
    continues to work with the manufacturer to resolve the QT&E documented
    deficiencies.
    C-5 Galaxy
        Over the next 4 years, there will be primarily sustainability
    modifications to the weapons systems to allow the C-5 to continue as
    the backbone of the airlift community. Several major modifications will
    be performed on the engines to increase reliability and
    maintainability. Additionally, the remainder of the fleet will receive
    the avionics modernization that replaces cockpit displays while
    upgrading critical navigational and communications equipment. Also,
    consideration is being made to install Aircraft Defensive Systems on C-
    5A aircraft. Installation of Aircraft Defensive Systems will increase
    the survivability of the C-5A in hostile situations.
    C-17 Globemaster
        In the summer of fiscal year 2005, the first AFRC Unit Equipped C-
    17 squadron will stand up at March AFB. This new squadron will enhance
    the mobility capabilities for the United States military in peacetime
    and in conflict by rapid strategic delivery of troops and all type of
    cargo while improving the ability of the total airlift system to
    fulfill the worldwide air mobility requirements.
    C-141 Starlifter
        For the past 31 years, the C-141 has been the backbone of mobility
    for the United States military in peacetime and in conflict. In
    September 2004 the C-141 retired from the active-duty Air Force;
    however, Air Force Reserve Command will continue the proud heritage of
    this mobility workhorse and will fly the C-141 through the third
    quarter of fiscal year 2006. AFRC remains focused in flying the mission
    of the C-141 and looks to the future in transitioning to a new mission
    aircraft.
    C-130 Hercules
        AFRC has 127 C-130s including the E, H, J and N/P models. The
    Mobility Air Forces (MAF) currently operate the world's best theater
    airlift aircraft, the C-130, and it will continue in service through
    2020. In order to continue to meet the Air Force's combat delivery
    requirements through the next 17 years, aircraft not being replaced by
    the C-130J will become part of the C-130X Program. Phase 1, Avionics
    Modernization Program (AMP) program includes a comprehensive cockpit
    modernization by replacing aging, unreliable equipment and adding
    additional equipment necessary to meet Nav/Safety and GATM
    requirements. Together, C-130J and C-130X modernization initiatives
    reduce the number of aircraft variants from 20 to two core variants,
    which will significantly reduce the support footprint and increase the
    capability of the C-130 fleet. The modernization of our C-130 forces
    strengthens our ability to ensure the success of our war fighting
    commanders and lays the foundation for tomorrow's readiness.
    KC-135E/R Stratotanker
        One of Air Force Reserve Command's most challenging modernization
    issues concerns our unit-equipped KC-135s. Eight of the nine air
    refueling squadrons are equipped with the KC-135R, while the remaining
    one squadron is equipped with KC-135Es. The KC-135E, commonly referred
    to as the E-model, has engines that were recovered from retiring
    airliners. This conversion, which was accomplished in the early- to
    mid-1980s, was intended as an interim solution to provide improvement
    in capability while awaiting conversion to the R-model with its new,
    high-bypass, turbofan engines and other modifications. The final KC-
    135E squadron is currently transitioning to the KC-135R/T Model
    aircraft which is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2005.
        The ability to conduct the air-refueling mission has been stressed
    in recent years. Although Total Force contributions have enabled
    success in previous air campaigns, shortfalls exist to meet the
    requirements of our National Military Strategy. Air Mobility Command's
    (AMC) Tanker Requirements Study-2005 (TRS-05) identifies a shortfall in
    the number of tanker aircraft and aircrews needed to meet global
    refueling requirements in the year 2005. There is currently a shortage
    of KC-135 crews and maintenance personnel. Additionally, the number of
    KC-135 aircraft available to perform the mission has decreased in
    recent years due to an increase in depot-possessed aircraft with a
    decrease in mission capable (MC) rates.
        I would like to close by offering my sincere thanks to each member
    of this Committee for your continued support and interest in the
    quality of life of each Air Force Reservist. The pay increases and
    added benefits of the last few years have helped us through a
    significant and unprecedented time of higher operations tempo. This is
    my first opportunity to represent these fine young men and women as the
    Chief of Air Force Reserve, and I know that we are on the right path in
    establishing a stronger, more focused, force. It is a force no longer
    in Reserve, but integrated into every mission of the Air Force.

        Senator Stevens. Do you have anything further, General
    Helmly?
        General Helmly. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, you heard the discussion, I
    believe, about the bonuses and incentives for reenlistment.
    Could each of you tell me, what do you think is the most
    important incentive we have from your point of view for your
    service? General?
        General Helmly. Sir, let me say first that I am very
    conscious of the fact that there are two factors that play into
    a decision to enlist, as well as reenlist. The first one is of
    course the monetary factor. The second one is a service ethic.
    We have recently really started to emphasize the service ethic.
        I found when I assumed this position it was my judgment we
    had strayed too far in the direction of monetary only, so we
    have changed our recruiting ads, we have changed our retention
    focus. As I personally participated in reenlisting about 105
    soldiers in January between Afghanistan and Iraq, there were
    two factors they cited when I signed their reenlistment papers
    after the ceremony.
        The first one was that the $5,000 to $15,000 bump in the
    fiscal year 2005 authorization act for first term reenlistment
    was a deciding factor for them and their families. The second
    one, though, was--General McCarthy noted this--that the
    soldiers said, to a person: I am finally getting an opportunity
    to perform the skill for which I enlisted in the Army Reserve.
    That says to us that use of Reserve components, while not an
    anomaly in our Nation's history, has a decided effect on
    reenlisting the soldier.
        Thus, I caution against those who would say that the stress
    on the Reserve components is such we should not use them. It is
    my judgment we will be more unready if we return to that kind
    of usage factor.
        With regard to added incentives, I am conscious of the
    cost, and therefore it is my judgment that addressing the age
    at which the soldier becomes eligible to receive non-regular
    retired pay is a decided issue. I would also add that, while
    there is a decided monetary factor, our increase in money, I
    believe that we can create that money by looking at how we pay
    our soldiers on a daily basis.
        Largely, we pay our soldiers through 27 different forms of
    orders, each of which carries different entitlements for
    different periods. The type I and II BAH, which has been
    examined, we should move to a simpler pay formula that largely
    pays the Reserve component member a day's pay for a day's duty
    with a single BAH and the same kinds of entitlements that the
    active member receives--flight pay, parachute duty, hazardous
    duty, language proficiency, medical proficiency, et cetera, a
    much simpler formula that would put them on a scale roughly
    equivalent to their active counterparts.
        Last, I am not certain--in fact, I will tell you straight
    out, I share your concerns with regard to this pay
    comparability between my civilian employment level and the
    military pay. It is the lot of the American service member, all
    services, that all sacrifice. We have tremendous people in our
    Active components. To deny that some of them could achieve
    higher levels of pay in civilian life is a denial of the
    obvious. Many of them could.
        I will turn it over to my colleagues, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I appreciate that.
        Anyone else? Admiral.
        Admiral Cotton. Sir, I would echo every one of the
    General's comments, and I would add three thoughts. I would say
    that recruiting for the Reserve component starts while still in
    the Active component. This is a culture piece that we are
    attacking in the Navy, to educate everyone in the Active
    component about the importance of the total force. We believe
    in this so much that we think that when you are in the Active
    component you should no longer fill out a resignation letter.
    We think instead you should fill out a transition letter,
    because everyone does go to the Reserve component. We create
    expectations then.
        When they go into the Reserve component, they either go
    full-time support, they become a selected reservist, or, as
    many of them do, they go into the IRR, the individual ready
    reserve, which I think that we have not paid much attention to
    in the past. There are a lot of skill sets out there. We need
    to devise the systems whereas we track people and incentivize
    them to update, probably web-based, the things that they are
    doing in their civilian lives that we could reach out and get
    them while under contract in the IRR. We call that Sea Warrior.
    We are using a five-vector model. We measure the civilian skill
    sets which sometimes are used in the global war on terror.
        There is one other thought. There is a transition period,
    too. Our best recruit is someone who wants to re-serve. They
    are already trained. We recruit non-prior service, but the best
    people come with taxpayer money invested in them already as
    prior service. There is a transition period. For some people it
    is 3 months, 6 months; once they get steady, then they want to
    return to the force.
        We need to open up the aperture going after those folks
    when they leave and incentivize them and our leadership to look
    at those folks. If people return within an amount of time, then
    the Active component should not be hurt on retention or
    attrition because they stay in the force.
        Then last, about the parity, pay parity. We have to be
    careful of unintended consequences, because once you get in
    that foxhole, once you get out on the flight line, once you get
    aboard ship, when someone is earning more money than someone
    else because of some decision they made in prior life, you
    start to take apart good order and discipline. So I think we
    better watch that closely, sir.
        Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.
        General McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard anything
    from either General Helmly or Admiral Cotton that I disagree
    with. I think, quite frankly, that from my own service
    perspective that the bonuses that are in place right now seem
    in terms of recruiting and reenlistment, seem to be sufficient.
        I will go back to what I said in my opening statement.
    Providing the funds and the equipment to enable first class
    training, first class preparation for combat of everybody in my
    force is the most important thing that I can do to recruit and
    retain the right people.
        We have been asked and have made some transformations of
    the force. We have shifted, not a great deal, but we have made
    some shifts in force structure in line with what we have
    learned in the war. We have got to equip these new units with
    the things that they need. We have got the people now and we
    can call them newly transformed units, but if they are not
    equipped with the right gear we are going to lose those folks.
        So those are very important issues, issues for us.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        General Bradley.

                   AIR FORCE RESERVE RETENTION AND EQUIPMENT

        General Bradley. Senator Stevens, briefly--I will not
    elaborate at all. I agree completely with my colleagues. On the
    issue of bonuses, they work certainly, but I do believe that
    there is an element of service that is keeping our people in,
    as General Helmly said earlier. They are very proud of what
    they are doing and the reason Air Force Reserve retention is
    higher than ever I believe is because people are very proud of
    what they do. They enjoy their jobs and their units and they
    believe they are contributing to something that is very good.
        On the pay parity, it is a tough issue, but I believe the
    best quality of life is keeping people alive and the generosity
    that you all have shown, your subcommittee has shown, in
    helping fund our equipment items through the equipment accounts
    have had a dramatic impact on keeping people alive and giving
    us a much greater combat capability.
        There is no free money anywhere, so making pay parity for
    the Federal Government, even though certainly employees would
    enjoy that, I think the inequities that it brings on between
    folks who are mobilized and Active component folks is not
    helpful. I would rather spend money that we could get for the
    continued equipment improvements that you have given us in the
    past, continuing to do those unfunded items that give us much
    greater combat capability. We have demonstrably improved our
    capabilities and are a much more effective force because of
    that, and I think that is where we ought to put the money, to
    give us the better equipment and properly equip our people so
    that they can stay alive and do that job.
        Senator Stevens. I have been called to the floor, but I do
    have one last question I would like to have your views on. We
    have been told that we have another amendment that is involved
    in our bills this year. We have been told that if the tempo of
    operations is such that people in the Guard and Reserve are
    being called up too often, one of the amendments says if they
    are called up for a period of time and serve more than 6 months
    they cannot be called up again for 1 year.
        What would that do to your operations if we agreed to an
    amendment like that?
        General Helmly. Sir, as you know, the partial mobilization
    law under which we are operating carries with it a legal limit
    of 2 years, and I believe I am correct that the language in
    that law specifies that 2 years is computed as consecutive, 24
    consecutive months. After the President declared partial
    mobilization in a national emergency on September 14, 2001, the
    Department of Defense issued guidance that limited us to a 12-
    month limit and that was to be counted as not consecutive but
    cumulative. We are still operating under that, except that
    frequently it is 18 months.
        We have heard from Reserve component members in our force
    that they can stomach a deployment of about 12 to 14 months
    every 4 to 5 years. Thus, we have built a model that would
    routinely plan to call them to active duty for 6 to 9 months
    every 4 to 5 years, understanding it could be more frequently.
        It is my judgment if we went to 6 months out of 18, that
    period of time we call dwell time in the Army, between the
    mobilization or call to active duty, is in fact too short and
    too frequent. I believe that we need to make the dwell time for
    the Reserve component member a minimum of 3 years, and that is
    why we are using the 4-to 5-year model, with 6 to 9 months'
    active duty during that time every 4 to 5 years.
        Some people will wish to exceed that. I believe that our
    authorities, given increased flexibility, can accommodate that.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral Cotton.
        Admiral Cotton. I would agree with the General and add a
    couple of thoughts. We tend to try to make it clean and simple,
    one rule fits all. In this case it does not. We have HD/LD--
    high demand, low density--capabilities and units that we seem
    to have an appetite for as we do phase four war. There also is
    an intensity factor as well as a definement of deployment.
    Deployment to Guantanamo Bay is far different than it is to the
    Sunni Triangle, as it is to the highlands of Afghanistan or to
    other installations around the world that we use to prosecute
    the global war on terror. So there is a fatigue factor for
    people going to different theaters.
        We like to use a 6- to 7-month deployment model, with
    training en route as well as a decompression time, to limit to
    about 1 year. Then, using the Secretary of Defense's (SECDEF's)
    planning factor of 1 year out of 6, or 6 months every 3 years
    or however you want to do this, best use the skill set, keeping
    in mind that certain HD/LD assets are being used inside that
    planning factor just like the general set.
        With that said, I would echo all the Generals that the
    response by our people is fantastic. Everywhere I go there are
    hands in the air for people to go for the first time as well as
    to go for the second and third time. Keeping in mind that some
    people cannot, we have other volunteers. So unit integrity is
    important, but I tell everyone that they are individually
    mobilizable, that they can train en route and fill the holes,
    the requirements we need.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.
        General McCarthy. Sir, I would think that the provision
    that you talked about would be very destructive. One size does
    not fit all. My force is a different size and shape than Ron's
    and it needs a metric that fits the Marine Corps model, not
    something that is cast over everybody. So I think that 6 months
    and 1 year would be a bad and an adverse provision for the
    Marine Corps Reserve.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        General Bradley.

                         AIR FORCE RESERVE RECRUITMENT

        General Bradley. Senator Stevens, sir, I would agree
    entirely with General McCarthy. The Air Force has a different
    model. We do as much as we can through volunteerism. In fact,
    we do a very large percentage of Air Force missions every day
    with volunteers.
        That being said, we have mobilized nearly 40 percent of the
    Air Force Reserve since September 11, 2001. We have had
    thousands of people who have been mobilized, demobilized, and
    remobilized, sometimes three mobilizations. It certainly is a
    little bit disruptive. But I would be very opposed to tieing
    the hands of our service in being able to get access to the
    people it needs.
        We are allowed, as senior leaders in the Air National Guard
    and Air Force Reserve, to work inside the service many times to
    use volunteers to fill those slots. So it is not someone who is
    disrupted badly or opposed to it. So we would be opposed to
    those strictures.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you all very much. When
    Senator Hollings and I came back from that trip that I talked
    about, we recommended to Senator Stennis that he recommend to
    the Department that we use Guard and Reserve forces selectively
    in Europe. At that time there were none there at all. That
    interjected into the draftee regular services the volunteers
    who were in the Guard and Reserve for a short period of time at
    that time.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        But I do think that we have come a long way now with the
    total force, and you all make a terrific case for this. I have
    advocated that the Chief of the Guard and Reserve Bureau, and
    that it be that, have a place in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    That has never occurred, but I do think total force now calls
    for a permanent presence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a
    representative of all of these people who do fill in so often
    and so well into the total force. We are going to continue with
    that. I hope some day we will win.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James R. Helmly
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities that you
    believe would be more helpful than what you currently have?
        Answer. The Army Reserve is making every effort to improve
    recruiting and retention by utilizing the current incentives authorized
    and by recommending possible changes in laws and policies that are
    outdated for the current Global War on Terror missions. Prior to the
    implementation of the new bonuses (Oct-Dec), the average monthly
    reenlistment production was 1,241 reenlistments. The following are
    working well:
      --The increase in the reenlistment bonus amount to $15,000; payable
            in lump sum and in conjunction with the expanded eligible years
            of service from 14 years to 16 years to qualify for a
            reenlistment bonus.
      --The Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for Army Reserve, Active
            Guard Reserve (AGR). The total number of reenlistments for AGR
            Soldiers can be attributed to the SRB and expanding the
            eligible years of service from 14 years to 16 years to qualify
            for a reenlistment bonus. The number of Soldiers on their
            initial AGR tours increased along with the number of indefinite
            reenlistments.
        After the implementation of the bonuses (Jan-May), the average
    monthly production rose to 1,511 reenlistments per month. That equates
    to a 22 percent increase in reenlistments after the introduction of the
    new bonuses. For AGR Soldiers, in fiscal year 2003, we had a total of
    1,040 reenlistments, fiscal year 2004 1,527, and fiscal year 2005, as
    of June 30, a total of 1,515.
        The Officer Affiliation Bonus implemented, January 25, 2005, has
    not had the anticipated effect of attracting Active Component officers
    to the Army Reserve as troop program unit members. The law that defines
    this incentive prohibits officers who have service in the Selected
    Reserve previously from being eligible for the incentive. The removal
    of this restriction along with an increase in the bonus amount from
    $6,000 to $20,000 will assist in reducing the Army Reserve company
    grade shortage. Other improvements we believe will assist us in
    recruiting and retention include establishing a stabilization policy
    for active duty Soldiers who have deployed and subsequently opt to join
    the Selected Reserve, increasing the Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus
    cap to $40,000, increasing the eligible years of service for a
    reenlistment bonus to 20 years, raising the SRB for AGR cap to $30,000,
    the TPU reenlistment bonus cap to $45,000, the Officer Accession and
    Affiliation Bonus cap to $20,000, and increasing the Prior Service
    Enlistment Bonus cap to $25,000.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                  FISCAL YEAR 2006 ARMY RESERVE TRANSFORMATION

        Question. What are the plans to transform the Army Reserve and why
    do you believe that during this time of war it is so important to
    radically change how the Army Reserve does business? Do you have the
    resources to accomplish this transformation, both equipment and
    personnel, and what can Congress do to assist?
        Answer. ARFORGEN, the Army Force Generation Model, is a centerpiece
    of Army transformation. It is a managed force readiness framework
    through which all units flow. The Army Reserve organizes into
    expeditionary force packages of skill-rich combat support and combat
    service support units that complement other Army and Joint capabilities
    in support of Combatant Commanders. Unit manning strategies bring
    enhanced stability, facilitating training for Army Reserve Soldiers and
    units and growth and development of Army Reserve leaders. Advancing
    through ``Reset/Train'', ``Ready'', and ``Available'' force pools,
    these modular packages progress through individual training and
    increasingly complex collective training and achieve readiness levels
    heretofore unattainable. Additionally, this cyclic pattern eases one of
    the biggest concerns of our Soldiers, their families, and their
    employers--a lack of predictability, a major factor in recruiting and
    retention.
        In order to fully support ARFORGEN, we are restructuring and
    modularizing our units in order to maximize operational capabilities.
    One element of that initiative is the establishment of a Trainees,
    Transients, Holdees, and Students (TTHS) account, similar to that used
    by the Active Army, which will allow commanders to focus on their
    primary mission--training Army Reserve Soldiers and units and growing
    and developing Army Reserve leaders. Active and intensive management of
    the TTHS ensures that Soldiers return to their units as quickly as
    possible. Another element is the divesture of unnecessary command and
    control (C\2\) structure. Specifically, reducing non-deployable
    overhead by inactivating 10 Regional Readiness Commands (RRC) creates
    an opportunity to establish four Regional Readiness Sustainment
    Commands (RRSC) and new modular operational and deployable C\2\
    structures. While the manning, training, equipping, and sustaining
    strategies continue to be developed, Army Reserve transformation is
    generally resourced through investment and re-investment of available
    and programmed resources.
        These changes are all taking place as the Department of Defense
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations are being studied
    by the BRAC Commission. BRAC is a good news story for the Army Reserve,
    and, as an active participant in the process, the expectation is that
    the outcome will be very beneficial. Strategically placed, new and
    efficient Armed Forces Reserve Centers not only create efficiencies,
    but also encourage ``Joint-ness'' and honor our Soldiers and civilian
    employees by providing facilities commensurate with the quality of
    their service.
        Finally, efforts are underway to reengineer the process by which
    Soldiers are mobilized and brought to active duty. They capitalize on
    all the initiatives mentioned above to move from an ``alert-train-
    deploy'' construct to a ``train-alert-deploy'' model. Central to those
    efforts are investments and reinvestments in all areas of Soldier
    readiness (medical, dental, training, and education) before
    mobilization to ensure that required capabilities are available to the
    Combatant Commanders as quickly and efficiently as possible.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral John G. Cotton
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities that you
    believe would be more helpful than what you currently have?
        Answer. The Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act
    made significant changes to our existing Reserve Component bonus
    structure, in many cases tripling the amount of bonuses as well as
    permitting lump sum payments. These changes have significantly enhanced
    our ability to compete for talent in a very challenging recruiting
    environment, as well as in our ability to retain quality Sailors.
        The Department of Defense has submitted two legislative proposals
    for fiscal year 2006 that will provide additional authorities to
    further enhance our Reserve Component incentivization ability.
        The first proposal would modify 37 U.S.C. 316 regarding payment of
    Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) to permit payment of FLPP
    either in an annual lump sum or in installments.
        This proposal would also permit both Active and Reserve Component
    members to receive the maximum of $12,000 in one year period, further
    enabling our ability to acquire and retain these GWOT-critical skill
    sets. This would increase the Reserve Component benefit to match the
    Active Component benefit.
        The second proposal to 37 U.S.C. 308c would revise the existing
    Selected Reserve enlistment and affiliation bonuses to provide the
    Reserve components with a more flexible and enhanced incentive for
    members separating from active duty to affiliate with a unit or in a
    position in the Selected Reserve facing a critical shortage.
        Section 618 of the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act
    increased the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus to $10,000, which will
    help the Reserve components meet their non-prior service recruiting
    objectives. This new proposal would extend the enhanced enlistment
    bonus to members who are separating from active duty and agree to
    affiliate with the Selected Reserve. The current prior service
    enlistment bonus is only available to individuals who have completed
    their military service obligation and been discharged. The current
    affiliation bonus for members with a remaining military service
    obligation is inadequate; it only pays members $50 for each month of
    remaining service obligation. This section would increase the maximum
    bonus amount paid to members with a remaining service obligation who
    agree to continue their military career by joining the Selected
    Reserve. Because of their military training and experience, the
    military departments place great emphasis on retaining these members in
    the Selected Reserve after they separate from active duty. It is more
    cost-effective and provides a more ready force than only recruiting
    individuals who never have served in the armed forces. Having the
    authority to provide a richer incentive to members who agree to serve
    in the Selected Reserve following release from active duty is
    increasingly more important in light of the recruiting challenges
    experienced by some Reserve components in fiscal year 2005.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. Admiral Cotton, I have been informed that the Navy's
    Distributed Common Ground System has arrived at Naval Station
    Pascagoula. The potential Homeland Defense capabilities it can provide
    are impressive and we are glad to have it at the Naval Station. Admiral
    Clark stated that the Navy plays a critical role in supporting the
    Coast Guard with the Maritime Domain Awareness program. Your statement
    indicates that the Navy Reserve plans to fully support this initiative.
        How will the Distributed Common Ground System support the Maritime
    Domain Awareness requirements?
        Answer. The system associated with Pascagoula is the Littoral
    Surveillance System (LSS), which is a Navy System under the resource
    sponsorship of OPNAV N71 (Net-Centric Warfare Division). LSS is a
    legacy precursor of the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), which
    is designed to support deliberate strike and time sensitive targeting
    missions. There is no Navy requirement to utilize LSS or DCGS in
    support the Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) mission.
        The Navy plays an integrated role in supporting the Coast Guard in
    MDA. Ongoing efforts are focused in the areas of data fusion and a blue
    water broad area surveillance capability. A congressionally-directed
    Coast Guard demonstration of LSS will be conducted at the Joint Harbor
    Operations Center (JHOC) in Pascagoula.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities that you
    believe would be more helpful then what you currently have?
        Answer. Incentives are an integral tool used in the proper manning
    of our Reserve Force. Currently, the recruiting and retention
    incentives working well for the Marine Corps include the enlistment and
    reenlistment bonus (Title 37, sec. 308b/c), the affiliation bonus
    (Title 37, sec. 308e), and the Montgomery GI Bill-SR Kicker. The
    authorized increases in the bonus amount for these bonuses in fiscal
    year 2005 will assist us in keeping our best and brightest Marines. The
    Marine Corps Reserve is in the process of implementing the Conversion
    Bonus (Title 37, sec. 326) in order to facilitate changes for Reserve
    Marines impacted by the recent changes approved by the 2004 Force
    Structure Review Group.
        The funding increases and flexibility provided in the Fiscal Year
    2005 National Defense Authorization Act are an invaluable asset to our
    continued recruitment and retention mission. The approved legislation
    allowing payment of an affiliation bonus for officers to serve in the
    Selected Marine Corps Reserve will greatly assist in increasing officer
    participation and meeting our current junior officer requirements. The
    ability to pay lump sum payments for enlistments and reenlistments is
    expected to increase the present value of the incentive and continue to
    positively influence highly qualified personnel. The Critical Skills
    Retention Bonus under consideration for fiscal year 2006 will provide
    us greater flexibility to meet the emerging requirements of the Global
    War on Terrorism and will allow us to better target bonuses where they
    are needed most.
        The Marine Corps takes pride in prudent stewardship of the
    resources allocated to the Selective Reserve Incentive Program. Reserve
    Affairs has recently conducted a thorough review of its incentive
    programs and is in the process of improving the implementation of these
    programs. Many of the programs are in the initial stages of change and
    will be constantly monitored to improve their effectiveness.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General John A. Bradley
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. What recruiting and retention incentives are working well
    for your services and are there any additional authorities that you
    believe would be more helpful then what you currently have?
        Answer. Enlistment bonuses continue to work well, however, we are
    at a competitive disadvantage as other Services and Components have
    opted to fund these programs due to their current recruiting and
    retention problems.
        Recruits routinely consider all the different Services and are
    aware of the bonus amounts available. When job counseling, applicants
    routinely ask, ``What career fields are paying bonuses and how much?''
    Additional benefits of high interest are health benefits that bridge
    periods of non-active participation as well as expanded education
    benefits.
        The Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) is an often-requested
    incentive. The Air National Guard offers enlistees the SLRP as do most
    other Services in the Department of Defense. A recent study by the
    National Center for Education Statistics shows that about 50 percent of
    recent college graduates have student loans with an average debt of
    about $10,000. In fiscal year 2004 almost 29 percent of all Air Force
    Reserve Component accession had some college and 17 percent of all
    enlisted accessions had some college.
        Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate II is a barrier to
    volunteerism. Eliminating BAH II will create parity with Active Duty
    members performing the same types of duty.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                               FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

        Question. General Bradley, with the intense pace of military
    operations around the world, all the Services must face tough decisions
    when it comes to providing enough experienced personnel to serve back
    home as instructors. I have been informed that the Air Force Reserve
    augments the active Air Force with experienced instructor pilots;
    ensuring flight training units like the one at Columbus Air Force Base
    have the personnel they need to train future forces. Does this budget
    request provide the necessary resources for the reserves to perform
    this additional mission?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve submitted a budget for fiscal year
    2006 that attempted to provide adequate resources for all competing
    requirements. An aggregate of all unit-submitted requirements amounts
    to a significantly larger set of needs than the available resources. In
    the specific instance of the training being accomplished at Columbus
    AFB, full-time Active Guard/Reserve personnel provide much of the
    instructor workload. We also have a smaller population of Traditional
    Reserve personnel who also provide instruction. Both sets of personnel
    are resourced within the Reserve Personnel, Air Force and Air Force
    Reserve Operations and Management appropriations. In the broader
    context of providing both training and trained personnel in support of
    the Active Air Force, the Air Force Reserve also has three unit-
    equipped, Flight Training Units (FTUs), has Individual Mobilization
    Augmentees (IMAs) assigned at most Air Force training venues, and
    provides a host of training resources at the many installations on
    which we are co-located or associated with active duty units. In all of
    these instances, there is recognition that additional resources would
    improve the quantity and quality of the support the Reserve would be
    able to provide. In terms of buying power, the re-allocation of
    resources from traditional Reserve training activities to supporting
    the Global War On Terrorism has significantly diminished school and
    qualification/certification training opportunities throughout the Air
    Force Reserve.

                                     C-130E

        Question. General Bradley, I am aware of the proposal to terminate
    the C-130J program, and the recent grounding of part of the C-130E
    fleet. I understand that the C-130 is being heavily used in on-going
    operations, and that its use in Iraq has reduced the number of truck
    convoys, and therefore reduced the exposure of our ground troops to
    threats like improvised explosive devices. If the C-130J program is
    terminated, what will be the impact on the reserve forces?
        Answer. If the C-130J program is terminated, the short-term effect
    (five years) to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) is minimal, and the
    long-term impact (ten plus years) would be moderate. However, the
    indirect impact is yet to be determined as the program termination may
    result in the transfer of newer AFRC C-130H-models to active duty units
    to fill the C-130J gap.
        No impacts to 815 AS, Keesler, MS. Unit will receive full
    complement of 8 x C-130J aircraft by end fiscal year 2007 under the
    pre-termination procurement plan.
        Willow Grove will not receive 8 x C-130J in fiscal year 2014 and
    fiscal year 2015 as planned.
        Current C-130E's at Willow Grove have no restrictions on the Center
    Wing Box (First restricted plane estimated fiscal year 2017).
        Minneapolis-St Paul will not receive 8 x C-130J in fiscal year 2014
    and fiscal year 2015 as previously planned.
        C-130E aircraft were replaced with newer H models, therefore, no
    impact on mission.
        Eight recently assigned C-130Hs to be modernized under the Aircraft
    Modernization Program in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you all for your service. We are
    going to reconvene this subcommittee to hear testimony from
    Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on Wednesday, April 27.
    Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, April 20, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 27.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:47 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Bond, Shelby,
    Gregg, Burns, Inouye, Byrd, and Feinstein.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF
                DEFENSE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, U.S. AIR FORCE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
                CHIEFS OF STAFF
            HON. TINA JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE--COMPTROLLER

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, we
    welcome you back before the subcommittee at this important time
    for our Nation and the Department of Defense (DOD) and we
    welcome the Comptroller, Tina Jonas. The focus of our hearing
    today is on the fiscal year 2006 defense budget. This is our
    normally scheduled hearing where we ask the Secretary of
    Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to testify near
    the end of our hearing cycle to provide their important
    perspectives on the budget.
        General Myers, I understand this may be your last hearing
    with us as you plan to retire this year after 40 years of
    service. We hope we will see you again, but in any event we
    congratulate you and commend you for your service to our Nation
    and your appearances before our subcommittee and for your
    personal friendship.
        General Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. We have enjoyed that very much.
        General Myers. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. The budget request for defense reflects a
    shift in priorities for the Defense Department, spending more
    on personnel, the defense health programs, special operations
    forces, chemical and biological defense, and restructuring Army
    and marine ground forces and less on aircraft and ships
    designed for conventional war.
        The subcommittee continues to review this request and we
    look forward to this hearing today and the discussion with you
    of your priorities in the budget regarding investments for the
    future of our military. We would also welcome any operational
    update you may wish to provide.
        Your full statements will be part of our subcommittee
    record. We would ask each member to be limited to 5 minutes in
    an opening round of questions. Time permitting, we will proceed
    to a second round of questioning.
        I would like to ask our chairman if he has any remarks.
    Chairman Cochran, do you wish to make a comment?

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, no. I just join you in
    welcoming our distinguished witnesses and commend them for the
    tremendous leadership that they are providing to our country in
    this very important time in our history.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Our co-chairman, Senator Inouye.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to echo
    your comments in thanking General Myers for his long service to
    our Nation and for the stellar job he has done. I can tell you
    that we sincerely appreciate all you have done for us.
        General Myers. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Gentlemen, the Defense Department has
    received unprecedented funding levels during the past few
    years. Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the levels surpass
    anything we have seen since World War II. One would think that
    with the funding that has been provided we would not be facing
    any budgetary issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
        We understand the services are having problems with
    recruiting and retaining military personnel. We know that some
    have raised concern about the proposed cuts in the F-22, C-130,
    and shipbuilding. We recognize that there is a great demand to
    expand pay and benefits for men and women who serve. So too,
    there are difficult policy questions being considered.
        So how does the military adapt to improve intelligence
    capability without violating policies on the conduct of covert
    activity? Will we require a permanent increase in our forces to
    meet the challenges that the Nation faces today? Is the Nation
    prepared to implement changes in defense policy regarding space
    control? Does the new conventional global strike concept create
    challenges for arms control treaties?
        Today we have more than 150,000 men and women deployed in
    harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their willingness to
    serve and the heroism they have displayed every day is an
    inspiration to all of us. We know you share our goal to ensure
    that they are taken care of. Together we have a responsibility
    to provide them with the equipment they need to fight, to offer
    support for their families back home, and to guarantee fair
    policies which ensure equitable treatment for each service
    member across all departments.
        I am certain I speak for all when I say we appreciate all
    that you have done on our behalf.
        So, Mr. Chairman, General Myers, we are most pleased you
    could be with us to share with us your views, and I look
    forward to the testimony.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. May I ask if any member has a problem and
    must leave before we have a chance to hear the Secretary and
    General through? Senator Bond.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
    apologies to my colleagues, but we are trying to get the long-
    delayed highway bill to the floor at 11 o'clock and there is
    some interest, as I gather from talking to my colleagues, about
    trying to pass the highway bill. If it is all right, I would
    like to make a very brief statement to our distinguished panel,
    leave some questions for the record, because I will not be able
    to participate.
        Senator Stevens. Each member is going to be recognized for
    5 minutes. We would recognize you at this time, Senator.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, General Myers, Under Secretary Jonas: We
    thank you for being here, the great work you do, the positions
    and responsibility you hold. Several items that are very
    important to me and to the people I serve. As founding co-chair
    of the National Guard Caucus, we do not have to tell you that
    50 percent of the combat force in Iraq and approximately 40
    percent of the entire force is composed of the National Guard.
    Anybody who knows the Guard, as I have known from working as
    their commander in chief in Missouri for many years, knows that
    it comes at a price.
        Lieutenant General Blum has expressed concern about
    equipment shortfalls for Guard forces here at home, and I would
    ask most respectfully that you focus your attention on the
    readiness needs of the CONUS-based forces. Additionally, I
    would ask that you review the future total force (FTF) strategy
    of the Air Force, which has many Guard leaders and several of
    my colleagues and me concerned that the future total force may
    turn into a futile total force if the Air Guard is not provided
    a substantive role.
        I have two letters that I recently received copies of from
    senior representatives of the National Guard. I will provide
    those for the record and copies for you, sir. A letter from
    Major General Rataczak, the President of the Adjutants General
    Association, to General Jumper expressing concerns about the
    FTF, stating that ``Issues exist that could be very detrimental
    to the National Guard, to the point of irreversible
    deterioration. In particular, we fear the initiative as we
    understand it will cause serious gaps in the capability to
    defend the homeland.''
        The second letter, from Brigadier General Stephan Koper,
    President of the National Guard Association, to Congressmen on
    the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), says: ``Our
    membership is expressing grave concern about the direction of
    the FTF plan and its immediate negative impact on the Air Guard
    force structure. Concerns include continuation of the air
    sovereignty mission, funding transition mission personnel from
    current missions to future missions, and the limited role
    adjutants general have played in the developing the FTF plan
    and its impact on the Air Guard in anticipate of base
    realignment and closure (BRAC).''
        [The information follows:]

                                                        March 17, 2005.
    The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter,
    Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, 2120 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515-6035.
    The Honorable Ike Skelton,
    Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Armed Services, 2120
            Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-6035.
        Dear Chairman Hunter and Congressman Skelton: This decade our
    military forces have faced some of the greatest challenges in our
    nation's history. By supporting successful missions in Operation
    Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle and Operation Iraqi Freedom, while at the
    same time transforming to face the threats of the future, our Air
    National Guard has played a critical role in supporting U.S. strategic
    interests at home and abroad.
        Currently, the Department of the Air Force is developing its
    transformation plan, called Future Total Force (FTF). Over the years,
    the ANG has proven its willingness to transform and evolve. However,
    our membership is expressing grave concerns about the direction of the
    FTF plan and its immediate negative impact on Air Guard force
    structure. Such concerns include: continuation of the Air Sovereignty
    missions; funding to transition personnel from current missions to
    ``future missions;'' the limited role that The Adjutants General have
    played in developing the FTF plan; and the impact these force structure
    reductions will have on Air Guard basing in anticipation of BRAC.
        As you and your staff continue holding hearings, NGAUS respectfully
    requests that the House Armed Services Committee conduct a hearing on
    Future Total Force. Should any hearing be scheduled, we respectfully
    request that the National Guard Association of the United States
    (NGAUS) be invited to testify on behalf of the National Guard and its
    membership to outline the Guard perspective in relation to FTF. In
    addition, we offer to coordinate with you and your staff the selection
    of appropriate Adjutants General that could also offer relevant and
    critical testimony.
        The NGAUS recognizes a need for the Air National Guard to remain a
    ready, reliable and relevant component of our total air force
    capability. We also believe it is imperative that any future force
    modernization discussions that impact the Air National Guard involve a
    cooperative and collaborative interaction with the Adjutants General.
                Respectfully,
                                              Stephen M. Koper,
                              Brigadier General, USAF (ret), President.
                                     ______

            Adjutants General Association of the United States,
                                         Washington, DC, March 9, 2005.
    General John P. Jumper,
    Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, HQ USAF/CC, 1670 Air Force
            Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20330-1670.
        Dear General Jumper: The Adjutants General of the 54 states see the
    USAF transformation strategy known as Future Total Force (FTF) having a
    profound effect on the Air National Guard (ANG). We want to help the
    Air Force shape a strategy and force structure that uses the ANG to its
    full potential. Homeland defense is a critical issue for us as we are
    responsible to our Governors for homeland security matters.
        Adjutant General involvement with the FTF initiative only began
    recently with three Adjutants General being invited to participate on
    the AF/XP sponsored General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC).
    Lieutenant General Steve Wood has actively engaged us since coming on
    board late last year. His focus on open exchange of information is
    refreshing and is setting a course that will benefit all.
        From our initial perspective the FTF initiative seems to focus on
    accelerated reductions of current weapon systems located predominately
    in the Air National Guard and the relocation of ANG units to active
    duty bases. The loss of flying units will be compensated by rolling ANG
    force structure into new missions to sustain its end strength. Issues
    exist that could be very detrimental to the National Guard to the point
    of irreversible deterioration. In particular, we fear the initiative as
    we understand it will cause serious gaps in our capability to defend
    the homeland.
        Our concern compels us to ask you to undertake actions to refine
    and improve the FTF initiative. These proposals are necessary to
    preserve the Air National Guard, ensure defense in depth of the
    homeland, and provide the most lethal and cost effective force in the
    future.
        The Adjutants General can add significant value to Air Force
    modernization initiatives. First, we feel we should be involved with
    developing and vetting options, and be given the opportunity to
    contribute data and analysis to various studies. Through our Adjutants
    General Association of the United States (AGAUS) we can offer valuable
    ideas and critiques in a timely manner that will enhance the FTF
    initiative by making it more palatable to a broader range of interested
    parties.
        Second, the Air Force should thoroughly evaluate the air
    sovereignty mission after receiving USNORTHCOM requirements from which
    to develop a realistic force structure plan for homeland defense. The
    evaluation should consider weapon system dispersion as well as
    lethality and determine more precisely the extent other services will
    support this vital mission.
        Third, we want to work with the Air Force to develop a roadmap to
    2025 that uses proportionality as a key principle for determining roles
    and missions for the Air National Guard. This is not to say that
    current proportionality must be strictly adhered to. But rather, it is
    a starting point for determining the best mix of active and reserve
    component forces for future operations. We believe increasing full time
    strength for key weapon systems in the ANG deserves evaluation. The ANG
    may more effectively support critical Air Expedition Force rotations
    and other vital missions with a different mix of full time and
    traditional Guard personnel in units.
        Fourth, the community basing plan should be expanded immediately to
    include additional sites and different weapon systems for a more
    comprehensive evaluation. The Adjutants General believe very strongly
    that community basing is a key to sustaining the relevant and ready Air
    National Guard which has performed so magnificently in homeland defense
    and contingency missions.
        Fifth, to sustain an effective ANG end strength of approximately
    107,000 the FTF schedule must be adjusted to slow aircraft retirements
    while accelerating the assumption of new missions by the ANG to avoid a
    lengthy gap between mission changes during the transitory period. A gap
    will cause the loss of experienced personnel while impeding our
    transition to the Air Force of the Twenty-first Century.
        Sixth, the ANG should field new Air Force aircraft weapon systems
    in ratios consistent with our contribution to the war fight and
    interspersed throughout each system's fielding plan. The nation will be
    well served by involving the Air National Guard early on during the
    fielding F/A-22, C-17, and F-35 weapon systems. This would also apply
    to the new tanker and other flying systems (such as intra-theater lift)
    as they emerge from development. The Adjutants General can provide the
    Air Force valuable support if given a clear picture showing ANG
    participation throughout weapon system fielding.
        The Adjutants General have an obligation to nurture the rich
    heritage of the Air National Guard and ensure its readiness and
    relevance. We have defined several principles that will guide our
    actions in influencing the make up of the future of the Air Force.
        1. Retain the militia basing concept which connects the Air Force
    to communities dispersed throughout the nation and provides for agile
    and quick responses to dispersed threats;
        2. Leverage the cost efficiencies, capabilities, and community
    support generated by ANG units in the several states by including them
    as an integral part of the Future Total Force structure;
        3. Each state needs a baseline force for homeland defense which
    includes civil engineering, medical, and security forces;
        4. The Air National Guard maintains essential proportions of flying
    missions to nurture and sustain direct connectivity with America's
    communities while supporting the expeditionary Air Force cost
    effectively, captures the extensive aircrew and maintenance experience
    of the Air National Guard;
        5. The nation is well served by a continuing dialog involving the
    Air Force, National Guard Bureau, and the Adjutants General as new
    missions emerge and threats change.
        Our desire is to work with the National Guard Bureau in developing,
    vetting, and implementing initiatives. We provide perspectives from the
    field that when aligned with the programmatic expertise of NGB will
    result in sound courses of action with solid support from the several
    states.
        Sir, we truly understand and appreciate your Herculean efforts to
    transform the greatest Air Force in the World into something even
    better. We only ask that we are allowed to help in the process.
                Respectfully,
                                             David P. Rataczak,
      Major General, AZ ARNG, President, Adjutants General Association.

        Senator Bond. Finally, the third major item, I would ask
    you to look closely at the Air Force decision not to leverage
    its $68 million investment in the V-3 AESA radar, which upon
    completion of development within the next year will be the most
    advanced weapon system in the world for tactical fighters. The
    V-3 not only increases the expeditionary capability of our air
    forces, it also makes CONUS-based aircraft the most capable
    homeland defense platform in the world, second to none.
        I am mystified why the Air Force elected not to acquire
    this system. If this is the Pentagon's idea of a sound business
    plan, I need to go back to school and take a refresher course
    on good Government.
        I would just--the one question I would ask you, Mr.
    Secretary: Have you been briefed on why the Air Force elected
    to shelve the----
        Senator Stevens. Senator, you may submit the questions.
        Senator Bond. I will submit that.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Bond. All right, thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, we want to recognize you
    and General Myers and then we will proceed with questions from
    the subcommittee.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    members of the subcommittee.
        Sixty years ago, allied forces fought in some of the
    fiercest battles of World War II. The outcome of that difficult
    struggle certainly helped to transform much of the world,
    bringing freedom to distant shores, turning dictatorships into
    democracies, and longstanding enemies into friends. Today
    another generation of Americans, along with our coalition
    allies, have come to freedom's defense and thank you are
    helping millions of liberated people transform their countries
    from terrorist states into democracies.
        Two weeks ago I met again with coalition forces in Iraq and
    Afghanistan and with officials of those countries on the front
    lines of the struggle. Everywhere we traveled I saw first-hand
    the point you made, Mr. Chairman: the men and women in uniform,
    volunteers all, undertaking difficult duties with confidence
    and with courage. The debt we owe them is a great one.
        Members of this subcommittee who have visited with them and
    the wounded here in the hospitals, I thank you for it. You
    cannot help but come away, as I do, inspired by their courage
    and their skill.
        I certainly thank the Congress for providing the resources
    necessary to support them as they complete their missions. It
    is becoming increasingly clear that the sacrifices they are
    making have made a difference in bringing about a world that is
    freer and more peaceful and that rejects terrorism and
    extremism.
        If you think of what has been accomplished in the past 3
    years, we have--Afghans and Iraqis have held historic elections
    and selected moderate Muslim leadership. Extremists are under
    pressure. Americans' national security apparatus is seeing
    historic changes. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
    is undergoing reforms in organization and missions, deploying
    forces outside of the NATO treaty area for the first time,
    outside of Europe. And some 60 nations are engaged freshly in
    an unprecedented multinational effort to address the
    proliferation of dangerous weapons.
        We are here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2006 request for the Department, as well as funding for the
    ongoing operations in the global war on terror. Before
    discussing dollars and programs and weapons, let me just offer
    some context for the tasks ahead. When President Bush took
    office 4 years ago, he recognized the need to transform our
    defense establishment to meet the unconventional and somewhat
    unpredictable threats of the 21st century. The attacks on
    September 11 gave urgency and impetus to the efforts then
    underway to make the armed forces more agile, more
    expeditionary, and more lethal.
        The national security apparatus of the United States has
    undergone and continues to undergo historic changes on a number
    of fronts. We are addressing the urgency of moving military
    forces rapidly across the globe, the necessity of functioning
    as a truly joint force, the need to recognize that we are
    engaged in a war and yet still bound by peacetime behavior and
    practices and constraints and regulations and requirements. But
    we are up against an enemy that is unconstrained by laws or
    bureaucracies. We are adjusting to a world where the threat is
    not from a single superpower, as it was, that we could become
    quite familiar with over a sustained period of time, but rather
    from various regimes and extremist cells that can work together
    and proliferate lethal capabilities.
        After more than 3 years of conflict, two central realities
    of this struggle are clear. First is that the struggle will not
    be won by military means alone. That is clear. Second is the
    reality that in this new era the United States cannot win the
    global struggle alone. No one nation can. It will take
    cooperation among a great many countries to stop weapons
    proliferation, for example. It takes nations working together
    to locate and dismantle extremist cells and to stop future
    attacks.
        One thing we have learned since September 11 and in
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere is that in
    most cases the capacities of our partners and our allies can be
    critical to the success of our own military forces, as is the
    ability and proclivity of our partners to curb the spread and
    appeal of that poisonous ideology in their education systems,
    news media, religious and political institutions.
        Mr. Chairman, for all the progress that has been made, and
    it is substantial, the armed forces are still largely equipped,
    understandably, to confront conventional armies, navies, and
    air forces. We have made major commitments to modernize and
    expand the Army, adding some $35 billion over the next 7 years
    in addition to the $13 billion the Army has in the baseline
    budget.
        We are increasing deployable combat power from 33 active
    duty brigades to 43 more powerful modular brigade combat teams.
    These teams are designed to be able to deploy quickly abroad,
    but will have firepower, armor, and logistics support to be
    sustained over a period of time.
        In addition to increasing overall combat capability, the
    Army's modularity initiative plus an increase of 30,000 troops
    in the size of the operational Army is to reduce stress on the
    force by increasing by 50 percent the amount of time that
    active duty soldiers will be able to spend at home between
    overseas deployments.
        As a result of a series of reforms, we are making the
    Reserve components, those individual reservists and guardsmen
    in high demand specialties, will be in the future be deployed
    less often, for shorter periods of time, and with more notice
    and predictability for themselves and for their families.
        The Department continues to reevaluate our contingency
    plans, our operations, force structure, in light of the
    technological advances of the past decades. These advances,
    plus improved force organization and deployment, have allowed
    the Department to generate considerably more combat capability
    with the same or in some cases fewer numbers of weapon
    platforms.
        For example, in Operation Desert Storm one aircraft carrier
    could engage about 175 targets per day. During Operation Iraqi
    Freedom in 2004, one aircraft carrier, instead of engaging 175
    targets per day, could engage 650 targets per day, more than a
    threefold increase. Today one B-2 bomber can be configured to
    attack as many as 80 different targets with 80 precision
    weapons during one sortie.
        In the past the Navy maintained a rigid deployment
    schedule. Ships would deploy for 6 months, overlapping with the
    ships they relieved, and upon arriving home they would become
    relatively useless. Training and equipment readiness plummeted
    into what became known in the Navy as ``the bathtub,'' with
    many battle groups unavailable for missions. The Navy's new
    fleet response plan has the capability to surge five or six
    carrier strike groups in 30 days, with the ability to deploy an
    additional two in 90 days.
        In consultation with Congress and our allies, the
    Department is making some long overdue changes in global
    basing. We are moving away from the cold war garrisons toward
    an ability to surge quickly to wherever capability is needed.
    When the President took office, the cold war had been over for
    a decade, but the United States (U.S.) forces overseas
    continued to be stationed as if we expected a Soviet tank
    attack in Germany and as though South Korea was still an
    impoverished country devastated by the Korean War.
        We advanced the commonsense notion that U.S. troops should
    be where they are needed, they should be where they are wanted,
    a hospitable environment, and they should be where they can be
    used effectively in the 21st century. Those changes are
    bringing home some 70,000 troops and up to 100,000 family
    members. Military personnel and their families as a result will
    experience fewer changes of station, less disruption in their
    lives, which of course is an important factor in reducing
    stress on the force.
        The new global security environment drives the approach to
    our domestic force posture as well.
        Some thoughts about the future. To the seeming surprise of
    some, our enemies have brains. They are constantly adapting and
    adjusting to what we are doing. They combine medieval
    sensibilities with modern technology and with media savvy to
    find new ways to exploit perceived weaknesses and to weaken the
    civilized world.
        We have to employ the lessons of the past 3\1/2\ years of
    war to be able to anticipate, adjust, and act and react with
    greater agility. These necessary reforms have encountered and
    will continue to encounter resistance. It is always difficult
    to depart from the known and the comfortable. Abraham Lincoln
    once compared his efforts to reorganize the Union army during
    the Civil War to bailing out the Potomac River with a teaspoon.
    We are finding it tough, but it is not going to be that tough.
        If you consider the challenge our country faces to not only
    reorganize the military, but also to try to transform an
    enormous defense bureaucracy and to fight two wars at the same
    time--and if that were not enough, we are doing it, all of
    this, for the first time in history in an era with 24-hour
    worldwide satellite news coverage, live coverage of terrorist
    attacks, cell phones, digital cameras, global Internet, e-mail,
    embedded reporters, and increasingly casual regard for
    protection of classified documents and information, and a
    United States Government that is essentially still organized
    for the industrial age as opposed to the information age.
        Mr. Chairman, the President's 2006 budget request proposes
    some tough choices and it proposes to fund a balanced
    combination of programs to develop and field the capabilities
    most needed by the American military. It continues to use Navy
    and Marine Corps shift toward a new generation of ships and
    related capabilities. It continues the acquisition of Air
    Force, Navy, and other aircraft to sustain U.S. air dominance
    and provide strong airlift and logistics support. It continues
    to strengthen U.S. missile defenses. It advances new
    intelligence and communication capabilities with many times the
    capacity of existing systems.
        The budget would maintain the President's commitment to our
    military men and women and their families as well. It includes
    a 3.1 percent increase in military base pay. The budget keeps
    us on track to eliminate all inadequate military family housing
    units in the next 3 years.
        As to the current budget process, I appreciate your efforts
    to move the President's supplemental request quickly. It is
    critical that the military services receive these funds soon. I
    know that the Members of Congress understand that. The Army's
    basic readiness and operating accounts will be exhausted in
    early May. Now it is just a matter of days. And it has already
    taken to stretching existing funds to make up the shortfalls.
        So I urge the Congress to achieve final passage of the
    supplemental before the recess later this week.
        Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Transferring resources
    away from the training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan
    security forces of course would seriously impede their ability
    to assume responsibilities that are now borne by U.S. troops,
    and I would add at vastly greater cost to our country in both
    dollars and lives. We need the flexibility to channel this
    funding to where it is needed most. The House's reductions in
    funding for sustaining other coalition forces as well as the
    underfunding of the President's request to reimburse
    cooperating nations would make it vastly more difficult for
    allies and partners to support military and stability
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, further increasing the
    strain on U.S. forces.
        Failure to fund projects that Central Command requested
    could impede our ability to support ongoing operations in the
    theater with respect to military construction.
        We believe that restriction on acquisition of the DD(X)
    destroyer would drive up costs and would restrict options while
    the Navy and the Department conduct a detailed evaluation of
    the program. The pending Senate restrictions on the U.S.S. John
    F. Kennedy would prevent the Navy from freeing up resources to
    counter current threats while preparing for future challenges.
        Finally, underfunding known costs, such as higher fuel
    expenditures, or including new unfunded death and injury
    benefits in the final bill will of necessity force us to divert
    resources from other troop needs.
        So I respectfully ask this subcommittee to take these
    considerations into account.
        Mr. Chairman, across the world brave men and women wearing
    America's uniform are doing the truly hard work of history. I
    know you share my desire to see that they have all the support
    they need. Bringing the hope of freedom to some of the darkest
    corners of the Earth will render a powerful blow to the forces
    of extremism, who have killed thousands of innocent people in
    our country and across the globe.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank you all for what you have done on behalf of our
    troops and we look forward to responding to questions. Thank
    you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Donald H. Rumsfeld

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good afternoon.
        Sixty years ago this month, Allied forces fought in some of the
    fiercest battles of World War II. Many young men lost their lives and
    were grievously wounded in those battles, and I would be remiss if I
    did not recognize the service and heroism of at least two of the
    members of this distinguished committee.
        The outcome of that long, difficult struggle helped to transform
    much of the world--bringing freedom to distant shores, turning menacing
    dictatorships into peaceful democracies, and longstanding enemies into
    friends.
        Today, another generation of Americans, along with our Coalition
    allies, have come to freedom's defense. They are helping millions of
    liberated people transform their countries from terrorist states into
    peaceful democracies.
        Two weeks ago, I met again with our Coalition forces in Iraq and
    Afghanistan and with officials in countries that are on the front lines
    of this global struggle. Everywhere we traveled, I saw firsthand our
    men and women in uniform--volunteers all--undertaking difficult duties
    with confidence and courage. The debt we owe them and their families is
    immeasurable. Members of this Committee have visited with the wounded
    and their families. You, as I, cannot help but come away inspired by
    their courage, and their skill.
        I thank the American people and their Congress for providing the
    resources and support our forces need to complete their missions. It is
    becoming increasingly clear that the sacrifices they are making have
    made a difference in bringing about a world that is freer, more
    peaceful and that rejects the viciousness of terrorism and extremism.
        Consider what has been accomplished in three years plus:
      --Newly free Afghans and Iraqis have held historic elections that
            selected moderate Muslim leadership;
      --Extremists are under pressure, their false promises being exposed
            as cruel lies;
      --America's national security apparatus is seeing historic changes;
      --NATO is undergoing reforms in both organization and mission
            deploying forces outside of its traditional boundaries; and
      --Some 60 nations are freshly engaged in an unprecedented
            multinational effort to address the proliferation of the
            world's most dangerous weapons.
        We are here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006
    request for the Department as well as funding for ongoing operations in
    the Global War on Terror. Before discussing dollars, programs and
    weapons, let me offer some context for the tasks ahead.
        When President Bush took office over four years ago, he recognized
    the need to transform America's defense establishment to meet the
    unconventional and unpredictable threats of the 21st Century. The
    attacks of September 11th gave new urgency and impetus to efforts then
    underway to make our Armed Forces a more agile, expeditionary and
    lethal force.
        The national security apparatus of the United States has undergone,
    and continues to undergo, historic changes on a number of fronts.
        We have confronted and are meeting a variety of challenges:
      --The urgency of moving military forces rapidly across the globe;
      --The necessity of functioning as a truly joint force--as opposed to
            simply de-conflicting the Services;
      --The need to recognize we are engaged in a war and yet still bound
            by a number of peacetime constraints, regulations and
            requirements, against an enemy unconstrained by laws; and
      --Adjusting to a world where the threat is not from a single
            superpower, but from various regimes and extremist cells that
            can work together and proliferate lethal capabilities.
        After more than three years of conflict, two central realities of
    this struggle are clear.
        First is that this struggle cannot be won by military means alone.
    The Defense Department must continue to work with other government
    agencies to successfully employ all instruments of national power. We
    can no longer think in terms of neat, clear walls between departments
    and agencies, or even committees of jurisdiction in Congress. The tasks
    ahead are far too complex to remain wedded to old divisions.
        A second central reality of this new era is that the United States
    cannot win a global struggle alone. It will take cooperation among a
    great many nations to stop weapons proliferation. It will take a great
    many nations working together to locate and dismantle global extremist
    cells and stop future attacks.
        One thing we have learned since September 11th and in the
    operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, is that in most cases
    the capacities of our partners and allies can be critical to the
    success of our own military forces. As is the ability--and proclivity--
    of our partners to curb the spread and appeal of that poisonous
    ideology in their education systems, news media and religious and
    political institutions.
        Mr. Chairman, for all the progress that has been made in recent
    years, the Armed Forces are still largely organized, trained and
    equipped to confront other conventional armies, navies and air forces--
    and less to deal with the terrorists and extremists that represent the
    most recent lethal threats.
        We have made a major commitment to modernize and expand the Army,
    adding some $35 billion over the next seven years, in addition to the
    $13 billion in the Army's baseline budget. We are increasing deployable
    combat power from 33 active duty combat brigades to 43 more powerful
    ``modular'' brigade combat teams. These teams are designed to be able
    to deploy quickly abroad, but will have the firepower, armor and
    logistical support to sustain operations over time.
        In addition to increasing overall combat capability, the Army's
    modularity initiative, accompanied by an increase of 30,000 in the size
    of the operational Army, is designed to reduce stress on the force by
    increasing by 50 percent the amount of time active duty soldiers will
    be able to spend at home between overseas deployments.
        And, as a result of a series of reforms we are making in the
    Reserve Components, those individual Reservists and Guard personnel in
    high demand specialties will in the future be deployed less often, for
    shorter periods of time and with more notice and predictability for
    themselves and their families.
        The Department continues to reevaluate our contingency plans,
    operations, and force structure in light of the technological advances
    of the past decade. These advances, plus improved force organization
    and deployment, have allowed the Department to generate considerably
    more combat capability with the same, or in some cases, fewer numbers
    of weapons platforms.
        For example, in Operation Desert Storm, one aircraft carrier could
    engage about 175 targets per day. During Operation Iraqi Freedom in
    2004, one aircraft carrier could engage 650 targets per day--more than
    a three fold increase. And today, one B-2 bomber can be configured to
    attack as many as 80 different targets with 80 precisions weapons
    during one sortie.
        In the past, the Navy maintained a rigid deployment schedule. Ships
    would deploy for six months, overlapping with the ships they relieved,
    and upon arriving home, become relatively useless. Training and
    equipment readiness plummeted into what became known as the
    ``bathtub,'' with many battle groups unavailable for missions. The
    Navy's new Fleet Response Plan has the capability to surge five or six
    carrier strike groups in 30 days, with the ability to deploy an
    additional two in 90 days.
        In consultation with Congress and our allies, the Department is
    making long overdue changes in U.S. global basing, moving away from
    fixed Cold War garrisons and towards an ability to surge quickly to
    wherever capability is needed.
        When President Bush took office the Cold War had been over for a
    decade, but U.S. forces overseas continued to be stationed as if Soviet
    tank divisions threatened Germany and South Korea was still an
    impoverished country devastated by war. We advanced the common sense
    notions that U.S. troops should be where they're needed, where they're
    wanted, and where they can be used.
        Those changes will bring home some 70,000 troops and up to 100,000
    of their family members. Military personnel and their families will
    experience fewer changes of station and less disruption in their
    lives--an important factor in reducing stress on the force.
        The new global security environment drives the approach to our
    domestic force posture as well. The Department continues to maintain
    more military bases and facilities than are needed--consuming and
    diverting valuable personnel and resources. Base Realignment and
    Closure, or BRAC, will allow the Department to reconfigure its current
    infrastructure to one that maximizes warfighting capability and
    efficiency. And it will provide substantial savings over time--money
    that is needed to improve the quality of life for the men and women in
    uniform, for force protection, and for investments in needed weapons
    systems.
        Another challenge the Department faces is attracting and retaining
    high-caliber people to serve in key positions. For decades, the
    Department has lived with personnel practices that would be
    unacceptable to any successful business. With the support of Congress,
    the Department is now instituting a new National Security Personnel
    System, designed to provide greater flexibility in hiring, assignments
    and promotions--allowing managers to put the right people in the right
    positions when and where they are needed. About 60,000 Department of
    Defense employees, the first spiral in a wave of over 300,000, will
    transition into this new system as early as this summer.
        The Pentagon also began to change the way it does business.
        We have adopted an evolutionary approach to acquisition. Instead of
    waiting for an entire system to be ready before fielding it, this
    approach has made it possible, for example, to more rapidly field new
    robots to detonate roadside bombs in Iraq.
        Some thoughts about the future.
        To the seeming surprise of some, our enemies have brains. They are
    constantly adapting and adjusting to what we're doing. They combine
    medieval sensibilities with modern technology and media savvy to find
    new ways to exploit perceived weaknesses and to weaken the civilized
    world.
        We must employ the lessons of the past three and half years of war
    to be able to anticipate, adjust, act and react with greater agility.
    These necessary reforms have encountered, and will continue to
    encounter, resistance. It is always difficult to depart from the known
    and the comfortable. Abraham Lincoln once compared his efforts to
    reorganize the Union Army during the Civil War to bailing out the
    Potomac River with a teaspoon.
        But, consider the challenge our country faces to not only
    reorganize the military, but to also transform the enormous Defense
    bureaucracy and fight two wars at the same time. And, if that were not
    enough, to do all this for the first time in an era with:
      --24 hour worldwide satellite news coverage, with live coverage of
            terrorist attacks, disasters and combat operations;
      --Cell phones;
      --Digital cameras;
      --Global internet;
      --E-mail;
      --Embedded reporters;
      --An increasingly casual regard for the protection of classified
            documents and information; and
      --A U.S. government still organized for the Industrial Age, not the
            Information Age.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2006 REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget request makes
    some tough choices and proposes to fund a balanced combination of
    programs to develop and field the capabilities most needed by America's
    military.
      --It continues the Navy and Marine Corps shift towards a new
            generation of ships and related capabilities;
      --It continues the acquisition of Air Force, Navy and other aircraft
            to sustain U.S. air dominance and provide strong airlift and
            logistics support;
      --It continues to strengthen U.S. missile defenses; and
      --It advances new intelligence and communications capabilities with
            many times the capacity of existing systems.
        The Budget would maintain the President's commitment to our
    military men and women and their families. It includes a 3.1 percent
    increase in military base pay. The Budget also keeps us on track to
    eliminate all inadequate military family housing units over the next
    three years.

                     FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

        As to the current budget process, I appreciate your efforts to move
    the President's supplemental request quickly. It is critical that the
    Military Services receive these funds very soon. The Army's basic
    readiness and operating account will be exhausted in early May--a
    matter of days--and it has already taken to stretching existing funds,
    such as restraining supply orders, to make up the shortfalls.
        I urge Congress to achieve final passage of the supplemental before
    the Senate recesses later this week.
        Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces.--Transferring resources away from
    the training and equipping of Afghan and Iraqi security forces would
    seriously impede their ability to assume responsibilities now borne by
    U.S. troops--at vastly greater cost to our nation in both dollars and
    lives. We need the flexibility to channel this funding to where it is
    needed most.
        Coalition Partners.--The House's reduction in funding for
    sustaining other Coalition forces, as well as the underfunding of the
    President's request to reimburse cooperating nations, will make it
    vastly more difficult for allies and partners to support military and
    stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--further increasing the
    strain and stress on U.S. forces.
        Military Construction.--Failure to fund projects that Central
    Command requested impedes our ability to support ongoing operations in
    the theater. Of special concern are the projects at Ali Al Salem
    Airfield and Al Dhafra Air Base to provide needed upgrades to
    logistics, intelligence and surveillance support.
        Unrequested Provisions.--The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget
    reflects the Department of Defense's commitment to meeting the threats
    and challenges of the 21st Century. However, the Senate-passed bill
    limits the Department of Defense's flexibility for its transformation
    agenda by affecting the planned acquisition strategy for several major
    programs. The Department of Defense is examining strategies to control
    costs in its modernization effort and should be allowed to balance
    cost, schedule, and performance in an optimum manner.
        The Administration is also concerned that the Senate bill includes
    a provision that would prevent the Navy from retiring the U.S.S. John
    F. Kennedy. Any requirement to obligate funds for the maintenance and
    repair of a ship the Navy believes is no longer essential is not a good
    use of resources. Further, the Administration opposes a requirement to
    maintain at least 12 active aircraft carriers as the Department is
    currently engaged in a Quadrennial Defense Review that will examine
    options for the Navy shipbuilding program and make recommendations to
    ensure force structure addresses future needs.
        Finally, new or expanded benefits, such as for payments to
    survivors of fallen servicemembers, must be fully funded in the bill.
    Otherwise, the effect will be to divert resources from other troop
    needs.
        I respectfully ask this Committee to take these considerations into
    account.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, across the world, brave men and women wearing
    America's uniform are doing the hard work of history. I know you share
    my desire to see that they have the support they need. Bringing the
    hope of freedom to some of the darkest corners of the Earth will render
    a powerful blow to the forces of extremism who have killed thousands of
    innocent people in our country and across the globe.
        I thank you for all you have done on behalf of our troops, and I
    look forward to responding to your questions.

        Senator Stevens. General Myers, do you have a statement,
    sir?

                     STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS

        General Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Senator Inouye and members of the subcommittee. Once again,
    thank you for your unwavering support of our armed forces and,
    more specifically, the men and women in uniform, particularly
    as they fight this all-important global war on terrorism and
    violent extremism.
        We remember the brave service men and women and Government
    civilians who have been wounded or given their lives for this
    noble cause and we grieve with their friends and with their
    families.
        We are now in the fourth year of sustained combat
    operations and our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Coast
    Guardsmen, and U.S. Government civilians continue to perform
    superbly under extremely challenging conditions. I am
    tremendously proud of them, as I know you are.
        Our forces are fully prepared to support our national
    defense strategy and to assure our allies, while we dissuade,
    deter, and defeat any adversary. The fiscal year 2006 defense
    budget request provides critical funding for winning the global
    war on terrorism, securing peace in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    combatting weapons of mass destruction, enhancing our joint
    warfighting capabilities, and transforming the armed forces to
    meet the challenges of the 21st century.
        Our forces are the world's most capable, in large part
    because they are the best trained and equipped. The 2006
    defense budget and the funds you supported in the fiscal year
    2005 supplemental request are vital to ensuring our troops are
    trained and resources for the missions they are assigned and to
    sustain their readiness while they are deployed.
        In my opinion this is a pivotal moment in our Nation's
    history and in world history. We must stay committed in this
    global war on terrorism and violent extremism if justice,
    tolerance, and freedom are to triumph over violence, fear, and
    oppression. Make no mistake, we have undertaken a long and hard
    task to help people long brutalized by repressive regimes build
    a future based on freedom and tolerance.
        Our significant progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
    places around the world is a tribute to the hard work and
    sacrifice of our dedicated American service members and our
    coalition partners and to the continuing dedication of the
    American people and the Congress.
        In Iraq, the United States remains committed to helping the
    Iraqis build a secure and peaceful future with a representative
    government based upon the rule of law. Over the last year, the
    Iraqi people have become more and more self-reliant. The
    transfer of sovereignty last June, the successful election,
    followed by the Transitional National Assembly selection of the
    Presidency Council and the Prime Minister, showed their courage
    and determination to support a free and democratic country and
    also to continue to represent a moral defeat for the
    insurgents.
        Despite the many challenges, the Iraqis have shown a strong
    pride of ownership in their new government and in their future.
    Forming a new government is not easy, but continued progress is
    essential to sustaining the positive momentum seen since the
    January elections.
        In Afghanistan, the coalition continues to make great
    progress. Congress' firm commitment is leading the
    international effort to fund and equip Afghan reconstruction.
    NATO and the coalition will continue to help build and train
    the commands and institutions the Afghans need to sustain and
    manage their security apparatus.
        One of the great challenges in Afghanistan is the illegal
    drug trade. The Afghan government and the international
    community must continue to combat these challenges.
        All these operations at home and overseas, they all come at
    a cost, especially for our people, both our Active and Reserve
    component. They are so tremendously dedicated. They understand
    their mission very, very well and they understand what a huge
    difference they are making, and their morale is good.
        In the face of continued demands on our forces, we are
    analyzing all our policies and making changes to mitigate
    readiness challenges. I am concerned with the wear and tear on
    our equipment and I thank this subcommittee for its continued
    support of our request to help repair and replace our rapidly
    aging resources. Congressional support, both in the annual
    budget and supplemental funding, has been exceptional and
    essential for funding our continued operations and for funding
    Army modularization, recapitalization, and transformation.
        I am proud of our transformational efforts and successes
    and we must continue to invest heavily in transformation both
    intellectually and materially so we can meet the challenges
    facing our country today and in the future.
        This year we are working through three major processes that
    will have a far-reaching impact on the future force posture.
    The first of course is the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review
    (QDR) and it will provide a comprehensive strategic plan for
    transforming the armed forces.
        Second, the base realignment and closure process provides
    an excellent opportunity to further transform our warfighting
    capability and eliminate excess capacity.
        Third, our global basing strategy transforms the cold war
    footprint into one that is focused on combining the
    capabilities of U.S.-based rotational forces that are lean and
    agile with strategically placed overseas-based forces.
        The important transformational decisions we make today will
    have a lasting impact on our Nation's defense capabilities and
    the capabilities of our allies and coalition partners.
        As I know all of you know, we must stay committed if we are
    to win this global war on terrorism and extremism and defend
    the United States and our national interests. As the Secretary
    said, the U.S. military cannot do this alone. Success in this
    21st security environment requires cooperating with our
    multinational partners and integrating military capabilities
    across the U.S. interagency. In my view, our way of life
    remains at stake, so failure is not an option. With Congress'
    continued strong support, our military will continue to be
    unwavering in our focus, our resolve, and our dedication to
    peace and freedom.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

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

                     Prepared Statement of Richard B. Myers

        In my fourth and final Posture Statement, I look forward to
    reporting to you on the state of the United States Armed Forces, our
    successes over the last year, our continuing challenges, and our
    priorities for the coming year. I also would like to thank you for your
    unwavering support of our armed forces and our servicemen and women.
        Our Nation is entering the fourth year of sustained combat
    operations. Our successes in the past year are clearly due to the
    dedicated and courageous service of our Nation's Soldiers, Sailors,
    Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen, and civilians who are serving within
    our borders and around the globe. Their service as warriors, diplomats,
    peacekeepers and peacemakers has been exceptional. They are truly our
    Nation's most precious and important assets. Serving alongside our
    Coalition partners and allies, they have accomplished very demanding,
    and many times, very dangerous missions.
        Building democracy and hope in areas long ruled by terror and
    oppression is a long, hard task. Our success in both Iraq and
    Afghanistan is a tribute to the hard work and sacrifice of our
    Coalition partners and our dedicated American servicemembers. The U.S.
    Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen and U.S. Government
    civilians who have been killed or wounded sacrificed to make the world
    safer and provide hope to millions. We grieve with their families, and
    with the families of all the Coalition forces and civilians who made
    the ultimate sacrifice in these noble endeavors.
        While overall results are positive, significant challenges affect
    our forces engaged in demanding combat operations. These operations
    create many readiness challenges, including Combat Service and Combat
    Service Support capability limitations, Reserve Component mobilization
    challenges, equipment challenges, and manning a growing number of
    Combined and Joint Force headquarters. The past 3 years have been
    demanding, and while there are no ``silver bullets'' to make our
    problems go away, I will outline our way ahead to address our long-term
    challenges.
        We remain resolved, dedicated, and committed to winning the Global
    War on Terrorism (GWOT), securing the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), enhancing joint
    warfighting capabilities and transforming the Armed Forces to meet the
    challenges of the 21st Century.
        We are making steady progress in these areas. Our homeland is safer
    and we are committed to winning the Global War on Terrorism.
    Afghanistan has a democratically elected president and three quarters
    of al-Qaida's leadership has been killed or captured. In January, the
    Iraqi people democratically elected a Transitional National Assembly, a
    crucial step toward a permanent government and their first legitimate
    election in generations. We continue to improve our world-class joint
    warfighting capability, and we are making good progress in transforming
    our Armed Forces.
        Despite the current operational demands on our forces, we remain
    ready to support the President's National Security Strategy to make the
    world not just safer, but better. We are fully prepared to support our
    strategy to assure our allies while we dissuade, deter and defeat any
    adversary. Our revised National Military Strategy links this strategic
    guidance to operational warfighting, defining three interrelated
    National Military Objectives--protect the United States, prevent
    conflict and surprise attack, and prevail against adversaries--along
    with supporting additional military tasks and missions. Success in
    meeting these objectives necessitates cooperating with multinational
    partners and integrating military capabilities across the Interagency
    to harness all elements of National power.
        Executing our strategy requires a force fully prepared to
    simultaneously conduct campaigns to prevail against adversaries,
    protect the United States from direct attack, and undertake activities
    to reduce the potential for future conflict. Success requires an array
    of capabilities, from combat capabilities to defeat the forces that
    threaten stability and security, to capabilities integrated with the
    Interagency for stability and security operations. We must continue to
    invest in activities such as International Military Education and
    Training and Theater Security Cooperation that serve to expand and
    strengthen alliances and coalitions. These alliances and activities
    contribute to security and stability and foster international
    conditions that make conflict less likely.
        We expect this year will be no less challenging than last year, as
    we fight the Global War on Terrorism, continue to excel in joint
    operations, and transform our Armed Forces. With the continued strong
    support of Congress and the dedicated service of the men and women of
    our Armed Forces, we will succeed.

                      WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

        The Global War on Terrorism will continue to be a long and
    difficult war affecting the entire global community. It will require
    our firm commitment and the cooperation of our allies and coalition
    partners as well as international organizations, domestic state
    governments, and the private sector.
        The United States is fighting a new kind of war against a new kind
    of enemy. This enemy is motivated by extremist ideologies that threaten
    such principles as freedom, tolerance, and moderation. These ideologies
    have given rise to an enemy network of extremist organizations that
    deliberately target innocent civilians to spread fear. Extremists use
    terrorism to undermine political progress, economic prosperity, the
    security and stability of the international state system, and the
    future of civil society. We are fighting to bring freedom to societies
    that have suffered under terrorism and extremism and to protect all
    societies' right to participate in and benefit from the international
    community.
        The United States cannot defeat terrorism alone, and the world
    cannot defeat terrorism without U.S. leadership. We must ally ourselves
    with others who reject extremism. Success in this war depends on close
    cooperation among agencies in our government and the integration of all
    instruments of national power, as well as the combined efforts of the
    international community.
        The U.S. Government strategy for winning the Global War on
    Terrorism has three elements: protect the homeland, disrupt and attack
    terrorist networks, and counter ideological support for terrorism. We
    continued to make progress in the Global War on Terrorism during 2004
    and the beginning of 2005. Democratic forms of government now represent
    people who were controlled by brutal dictatorships. Lawless territories
    have now been reclaimed. Terrorist networks have been disrupted and
    their safe havens have been denied. The United States and its allies
    have captured or killed numerous terrorist leaders in Iraq and around
    the world. Freedom has replaced tyranny in parts of the world.
        Despite this success, the United States continues to face a variety
    of threats from extremist networks, criminal organizations, weapon
    proliferators, and rogue states that cooperate with extremists. To
    combat these threats, we continue to refine the role of the Armed
    Forces in homeland defense by combining actions overseas and at home to
    protect the United States. Critical to this role are U.S. Northern
    Command's (NORTHCOM) mission of homeland defense and DOD's
    contributions to consequence management. NORTHCOM can deploy rapid
    reaction forces to support time-sensitive missions such as defense of
    critical infrastructures or consequence management in support of the
    Department of Homeland Security or other lead federal agencies.
    NORTHCOM's Joint Task Force Civil Support coordinates closely with
    interagency partners and conducts numerous exercises to integrate
    command and control of DOD forces with federal and state agencies to
    mitigate chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield
    explosive incidents. The National Guard now has thirty-two certified
    Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Civil Support Teams. Twelve
    additional teams are undergoing the final 6 months of certification
    training. Congress established 11 more teams in fiscal year 2005. Those
    teams will conduct individual and unit training over the next 18-24
    months. I thank Congress for your continued support of these important
    WMD Civil Support Teams. Additionally, last October the National Guard
    reorganized their state headquarters into 54 provisional joint force
    headquarters, allowing them to interact more efficiently with other
    military organizations.
        The North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) is providing robust
    air defense of the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and
    the Virgin Islands through Operation NOBLE EAGLE. We are developing
    plans that build on the success of NORAD to improve maritime warning,
    maritime control, information operations, and enhanced planning.
    Although the effort expended on defending our country may be
    transparent to some, the operations and exercises being led by federal
    agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, NORTHCOM and
    NORAD, are robust, successful, and extremely important. The Total Force
    is doing a superb job in defense of our country, and I thank Congress
    for its continued funding of homeland defense initiatives.
        Forces overseas, led by our Combatant Commanders, are conducting
    offensive counterterrorism operations along with interagency and
    international partners to defeat these threats closest to their source.
    In addition to attacking and disrupting terrorist extremist networks,
    Combatant Commanders assist in building counterinsurgency,
    counterterrorism, internal defense and intelligence capabilities of
    partner nations. Strengthening partner capacity improves internal
    security, and ultimately contributes to regional stability and the
    creation of global environment inhospitable to terrorism. The Special
    Operations Command is designated as the combatant command responsible
    for planning and directing global operations against terrorist
    networks.
        The offensive efforts of our Global War on Terrorism strategy are
    designed to deter, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations, affecting
    terrorists' ability to effectively execute their attacks or sustain
    their ideology. DOD efforts include information operations that impede
    our enemy's ability to perform critical functions. Ultimately,
    continuous and successive attacks against the enemy cause their
    operations to fail.
        These offensive actions overseas constitute the first line of
    homeland defense. In the land, air, space, maritime, and cyber domains,
    DOD will continue to coordinate closely with allies and partner nations
    and other U.S. agencies to interdict terrorists and their resources
    before they enter the United States. The United States goal is to
    disrupt their efforts to access targets, and defeat attacks against our
    homeland. This requires effective information sharing, persistent
    intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, more and better human
    intelligence, and improved interoperability between the Armed Forces
    and other U.S. Government agencies.
        The third and most important element of this strategy to defeat
    terrorism includes de-legitimizing terrorism so that it is viewed
    around the world in the same light as the slave trade, piracy, or
    genocide. Terrorism needs to be viewed as an activity that no
    respectable society can condone or support and all must oppose. Key to
    this effort are actions to promote the free flow of information and
    ideas that give hope to those who seek freedom and democracy. DOD
    contributes to this important effort with security assistance,
    information operations, assisting humanitarian support efforts, and
    influencing others through our military-to-military contacts.
        The Global War on Terrorism will be a long war, and while the
    military plays an important role, we cannot win this war alone. We need
    the continued support of the American people and the continued support
    of the entire U.S. Government. The United States will have won the
    Global War on Terrorism when the United States, along with the
    international community, creates a global environment uniformly opposed
    to terrorists and their supporters. We will have won when young people
    choose hope, security, economic opportunity and religious tolerance,
    over violence. We will have won when disenfranchised young people stop
    signing up for Jihad and start signing up to lead their communities and
    countries toward a more prosperous and peaceful future--a future based
    on a democratically-elected government and a free, open, and tolerant
    society.

                         OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)

        The United States is committed to helping the Iraqis build a secure
    and peaceful future with a representative government based upon the
    rule of law. The list of important accomplishments in Iraq in every
    sector--education, medical care, business, agriculture, energy, and
    government, to name a few--is long and growing. Most importantly, Iraq
    has reached several important milestones on the road to representative
    self-government: transfer of sovereignty, parliamentary and provincial
    elections leading to a Transitional National Assembly, selection of a
    Presidency Council, a new Prime Minister and Cabinet. The key to
    success in Iraq is for Iraqis to become self-reliant. A timetable for
    leaving Iraq would be counterproductive, leading the terrorists to
    think they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result, and
    when that result is achieved, our men and women will come home.
        With the help of the Coalition, the Iraqi people are creating a
    country that is democratic, representative of its entire people, at
    peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. The Iraqi people
    continue to assume greater roles in providing for their own security.
    The recent Iraqi elections showed their courage and determination to
    support a free and democratic country, and represented a moral defeat
    for the insurgents. The Iraqi people have a renewed pride of ownership
    in their government, and their future. Voters paraded down the street
    holding up their fingers marked with purple ink from the polls. They
    carried their children to the polls as a clear symbol that they were
    courageously voting to improve the Iraq their children would inherit.
        This very successful election is just one milestone on a very long
    road. Together with our Coalition partners, the international
    community, Interagency partners, and Non-Governmental Organizations, we
    are fully committed to helping the Iraqi people provide for their own
    security and supporting their dream of a free, democratic, and
    prosperous future. I thank Congress for its continued support of our
    budget submissions and supplemental requests to help fund our
    operations and sustain our readiness posture. Your support and the
    support of the American people are key and have been exceptional.
        Many Americans have paid with their lives to ensure that terrorism
    and extremism are defeated in Iraq, but the morale of our
    servicemembers remains very high, and they are dedicated to helping
    achieve peace and stability. There are approximately 140,000 U.S.
    servicemembers in Iraq and approximately 22,000 coalition forces.
    Commanders in the field will continue to evaluate our force structure
    and recommend changes as security conditions and Iraqi Security Forces
    capabilities warrant.
        The insurgency in Iraq is primarily Sunni extremist-based and
    focused on getting Coalition forces out of Iraq and regaining
    illegitimate power in Iraq. Its leadership is predominantly former
    regime elements drawn from the Ba'ath Party, former security and
    intelligence services, and tribal and religious organizations. Other
    groups contribute to the instability, including militant Shia,
    Jihadists groups, foreign fighters, and extensive criminal networks and
    activity. They are generally well resourced with weapons, munitions,
    finances and recruits.
        The greatest threat to stability in Iraq comes from former regime
    elements and their supporters. In the near-term, however, a group of
    Sunni extremists comprising the al-Qaida Associated Movement adds to
    the security challenge. This al-Qaida Associated Movement is part of a
    global network of terrorists. Other elements of this movement were
    responsible for some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in 2004,
    including the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, and the September 9
    bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. In Iraq, the
    al-Qaida group led by al-Zarqawi claimed responsibility for the tragic
    suicide bombing of the mess tent at Forward Operating Base Marez in
    Mosul in 2004. He has claimed responsibility for additional deadly
    attacks against Coalition forces and innocent Iraqi civilians this
    year.
        We expect insurgents to persist in their attacks, particularly as
    the Coalition continues to help Iraqis rebuild their country and form
    their new government. The Coalition will stand firmly beside the Iraqi
    people to sustain momentum and progress in helping the Iraqi Security
    Forces defeat these insurgents and terrorists.
        Reconstruction and economic stabilization efforts are expanding
    steadily In 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq. In the other 4 provinces,
    the insurgents are sustaining a hostile environment that undermines
    reconstruction and economic stabilization. The use of Improvised
    Explosive Devices (IED), car bombs, and stand-off attacks continue at
    elevated levels.
        The insurgents are tough enemies, but they offer no alternative
    positive vision for Iraq. Instead, they offer the old vision of Iraq:
    extremism, tyranny, violence and oppression. Insurgents are conducting
    an intimidation campaign to undermine popular support for the Iraqi
    Government, Iraqi Security Forces and emerging institutions. They use
    barbaric and cowardly attacks to target Iraqi government officials,
    their families and others who are trying to improve conditions in the
    country. We will continue to help the Iraqis hunt down extremists and
    their accomplices and capture or kill them.
        Elements in neighboring countries are interfering with democratic
    efforts in Iraq. In Syria, displaced Iraqi Sunnis and Ba'athists are
    also influencing events in Iraq. These efforts include aiding and
    funding insurgents, extremists, and terrorists, to plan attacks inside
    Iraq and transit from Syria to Iraq. The Syrian military and government
    have made some attempts to halt this influence and the illegal flow of
    terrorists into Iraq, but they need to do much more.
        Establishing Iraqi stability and security is a complex process but
    an important one, because it is the path to peace. There are several
    key components to this complex issue, including physical, social,
    economic, and political security. Coalition forces play a direct role
    in many of these key components, but we must address all of these
    components simultaneously. The U.S. military cannot do it alone. This
    is an Interagency as well as an international effort. We must balance
    all components to avoid making the Coalition military presence a
    unifying element for insurgents. The objective must be to shift from
    providing security through Coalition counterinsurgency operations, to
    building Iraqi capacity to operate independently.
        Currently, the Coalition is helping to provide physical security by
    protecting Iraq against both internal and external threats and training
    Iraqi military and police forces to provide their own physical
    security. Coalition military, NATO, and interagency cooperation has
    been very good. Currently, 31 (including the United States) countries
    and NATO are serving in Iraq. Based on the request of the Interim Iraq
    Government at the July 2004 Istanbul Summit, NATO representatives
    agreed to help train Iraqi Security Forces. In February 2005, NATO
    opened their Training Center for mid-grade to senior officers in the
    International Zone, and continues to work toward launching an expanded
    program at Ar Rustamiyah later this year to include training for senior
    non-commissioned officers. NATO will employ a ``train-the-trainer''
    approach to capitalize on existing Iraqi capabilities and grow their
    cadre of trainers. NATO has established a Training and Equipment
    Coordination Group located in Brussels. The Iraqi-chaired Training and
    Equipment Coordination Committee in Baghdad is helping to coordinate
    donated equipment and training opportunities for Iraqi Security Forces
    outside of Iraq. In order to maximize our efforts, NATO countries and
    the international community must fully support and contribute forces to
    the mission.
        The Iraqi Government has over 155,000 security forces trained and
    equipped at varying levels of combat readiness. The growing Iraqi Army
    now comprises over 80 combat battalions. Not all of these battalions
    are combat ready; readiness capability is a function of numbers,
    training, equipment, leadership and experience. We continue to work
    with the Iraqi government on raising, training, and equipping even more
    security forces. Just as importantly as increasing forces, the
    Coalition is helping improve the capability and readiness of the
    security forces. Iraqi division commanders have recently been appointed
    and are receiving training and mentoring. Coalition forces are working
    with them to build their headquarters and forces capable of independent
    operations. These leaders will be critical to conducting independent
    counter-insurgency efforts as they gather intelligence, shape plans,
    and direct operations.
        Iraqi servicemembers have fought valiantly alongside their
    Coalition partners in combat, and have had to face the constant threat
    of insurgent attack. Over 1,600 members of the Iraqi Security Forces
    have been killed in service to their country. Immediately on the heels
    of many effective combat operations, Iraqi and coalition partners have
    restored effective local governments that are responsive to the
    national government.
        Training Iraqi police forces is a longer-term project, but good
    progress is being made, especially with the special police battalions.
    The Iraqis now have nine public order battalions, a special police
    brigade, nine police commando battalions and seven regional SWAT teams
    actively engaged in the fight against insurgents and terrorists on a
    day-to-day basis.
        During the liberation of Fallujah, the Coalition that included
    Iraqi Security Forces made great progress in eliminating the
    insurgents' safe havens. Urban counter-insurgency operations are among
    the most difficult combat missions, but the Coalition courageously and
    successfully liberated the city, block by block and building by
    building. We continue to conduct effective offensive operations and
    help the Iraqi forces eliminate other safe havens.
        The social aspect of security includes ensuring educational
    opportunities, adequate wages, health care, and other safety-net
    programs are available to ensure the population has basic human
    services. Economic security requires helping to promote the Iraqi
    economy and industrial base to create jobs and sources of income
    sufficient to support local and state government services, individuals
    and families. Although neither social nor economic security are primary
    U.S. military responsibilities, Coalition forces are actively involved
    in these efforts to bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of local
    Iraqi governments. As much as possible, we are turning over
    responsibility for administering these projects to Iraqi leadership.
        In June of 2004, there were 230 projects from the Iraq Relief and
    Reconstruction Fund on the ground ``turning dirt.'' By January 2005,
    more than 1,500 projects were underway, accounting for more than $3
    billion in reconstruction funding and the progress continues. The U.S.
    military, Interagency, Coalition and non-governmental organizations are
    helping the Iraqis build sewers, electrical and water distribution
    systems, health centers, roads, bridges, schools, and other
    infrastructure. I cannot overemphasize the importance of these
    activities to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, after
    decades of decay under Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime.
        The Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) is a high-impact
    program that has been instrumental in our efforts to help secure peace
    and help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing commanders to respond
    immediately to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction
    requirements, this program proved to be an immediate success story. In
    fiscal year 2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provided a total
    of $500 million of budget authority for CERP. Through the supplemental
    budget request, DOD has requested a total of $854 million for this
    program in fiscal year 2005, $718 million for Iraq and $136 million for
    Afghanistan. I support the request for an increase in authorizations
    for CERP in fiscal year 2005 and thank Congress for your continued
    support of the Commander's Emergency Response Program.
        Political security means the Iraqis must be able to participate in
    the government processes without fear of intimidation. Last summer,
    Iraq began its transition to sovereignty. In August, military
    commanders shaped a plan that helped bring Iraq through the January
    elections and on to the constitutional elections in December 2005. The
    plan is on track. On January 30th, Iraqis elected a 275-person
    transitional national assembly, who will write a new Iraqi
    constitution. This was a very important step on the road to peace and
    security in Iraq.
        The Coalition goal is for the Iraqis to have a safe and secure
    country. The political process is moving forward. The country needs to
    be rebuilt after 30 years of decay, and we need to continue to help
    build Iraqi military and security forces and encourage good governance.
    We are making excellent progress in so many areas in Iraq, even though
    this progress does not always get the attention it deserves. Daily
    reports alone cannot define our successes or failures. From a broad
    perspective, the Coalition has successfully reached the first of many
    important milestones. Less than 2 years ago, Coalition forces defeated
    a brutal dictator and his regime. We established a provisional
    authority to get Iraq back on its feet, and transferred sovereignty to
    an interim government. The Iraqis have elected their Transitional
    National Assembly, which has elected their Presidency Council. The
    National Assembly will write a new constitution that will lead to
    another round of nation-wide elections and a permanent government. The
    Iraqis have many challenges ahead and many more milestones to meet, and
    the Coalition forces are supporting their efforts to ensure democracy
    and freedom will prevail.
        Although the stresses on our Armed Forces remain considerable, I am
    confident that we will achieve the goals set forth by the President.
    Our Coalition forces are dedicated, and the Iraqis are dedicated, as
    they proved on January 30th. As long as America keeps its resolve, we
    will succeed. Resolute Congressional leadership will be as important to
    our success in the future as it has been to date.

                        OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF)

        2004 was a historic year for Afghanistan. The entire region is a
    much better place due to the commitment of the United States, our Armed
    Forces and our Coalition partners. Currently in Afghanistan, 42
    countries and NATO are working to protect and promote a democratic
    government, with NATO assuming an increasing role in stability and
    reconstruction efforts. We currently have approximately 20,000 United
    States servicemembers in Afghanistan.
        The October 9, 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan was a
    historic moment for that country. Over 8 million people, 40 percent of
    whom were women, braved threats of violence and overcame poor weather
    to cast their ballots. The elections were conducted under the
    protection of their own National Army and Police Forces with the
    assistance of the Coalition and the International Security Assistance
    Force. The election of President Hamid Karzai is providing new momentum
    for reform efforts such as the demobilization of private militias,
    increased governmental accountability, and counter-narcotics planning
    and operations. Taking advantage of his electoral mandate, Karzai
    assembled a cabinet of well-educated and reform-minded ministers who
    reflect Afghanistan's diverse ethnic and political environment.
    National Assembly elections, currently scheduled for this spring, will
    provide additional leadership opportunities. The Presidential election
    represented a serious real and moral defeat to the insurgency. The
    Taliban's failure to disrupt the election further divided an already
    splintered insurgency. Nonetheless, some radical factions remain
    committed to the insurgency. Frustrated by their lack of success, these
    factions may seek to launch high profile attacks against the upcoming
    National Assembly elections, necessitating continued robust security.
        Congress's firm commitment to Afghanistan is leading the
    international effort to fund and equip reconstruction in Afghanistan.
    In fiscal year 2005, $290 million of the authority enacted by Congress
    to train and equip security forces will be used to accelerate the
    growth of the Afghan National Army (ANA). Now numbering approximately
    22,000 personnel--three times greater than last year--the Afghan
    National Army is a multi-ethnic, visible symbol of national pride,
    unity, and strength in Afghanistan. The goal is to fully man the ANA
    combat force with 43,000 servicemembers by late 2007, about 4 years
    earlier than originally planned. This is truly a success story. Fiscal
    year 2004 funding enabled the opening of 19 regional recruiting
    centers, which have been critical to attracting quality recruits to
    accelerate the growth of this force. In the next several years, the
    Coalition and NATO will help build the commands and institutions the
    Afghans need to sustain and manage their military. The ANA is on the
    path to becoming a strong military force, and in its early stages has
    proven tough and well disciplined in the field.
        The Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) program is a great
    success. As hubs for security sector reform initiatives,
    reconstruction, good governance programs and humanitarian efforts,
    these teams are key to stabilizing Afghanistan. There are now 19
    operational PRTs, 8 more than I reported last year. The Coalition
    currently leads 14 of these teams and NATO leads 5. With an improvement
    in security and increased Afghan governance and security capacity, the
    PRTs will eventually be transformed into civilian-only assistance
    teams, with Afghan district and provincial governments taking over an
    increased number of their functions.
        Last October, the United Nations approved a resolution extending
    NATO's International Security Assistance Force for another year. ISAF
    now controls five PRTs in the North, with Phase Two of NATO expansion
    into the west occurring in 2005. The intent is to continue NATO
    expansion by region, gradually replacing Coalition forces with NATO
    forces.
        In spite of the successes to date, low-scale insurgent attacks
    continue, and more disturbingly, opium production reached record levels
    last year. Afghanistan is responsible for most of the world's opium
    supply, and 80 to 90 percent of the heroin on the streets of Europe.
    Eliminating the cultivation of poppies used to produce opium is
    Afghanistan's number one strategic challenge. Illicit drug activity in
    Afghanistan funds terrorism and interferes with good government and
    legitimate economic development.
        Coalition soldiers are assisting in the counternarcotics effort in
    Afghanistan by reporting, confiscating or destroying drugs and drug
    equipment encountered in the course of normal operations, sharing
    intelligence, helping to train Afghan security forces, and, through our
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams, by providing assistance in communities
    migrating to legal crops and businesses. Ultimately, the Afghan
    government, aided by the international community, must address drug
    cultivation and trade with a broad-based campaign that includes
    creating viable economic alternatives for growers and manufacturers.
        Achieving security in Afghanistan is very dependent on disarmament,
    demobilization and reintegration; cantoning heavy weapons; curbing
    warlordism; and defeating the narcotics industry. President Karzai's
    patience and persistence in dealing with factional leaders continues to
    achieve results. Over 40,000 former militia troops have been disarmed
    and demobilized, nearly 96 percent of the known heavy weapons were
    cantoned peacefully, and factional disputes continue to yield to
    central government resolution. The power of the warlords is
    methodically giving way to credible, effective national institutions.
        Working closely with President Musharraf of Pakistan and President
    Karzai, we have been able to increase coordination among Coalition,
    Afghan and Pakistani forces along the border. The Pakistani government
    has taken the initiative to increase their military presence on the
    border, including manned outposts, regular patrols and security
    barriers. Pakistani military units also patrol in the Federally
    Administered Tribal Areas, once considered ``no-go'' areas. Pakistan's
    support in securing key border points was instrumental in shaping a
    relatively secure environment during the Afghan presidential election.
    The Pakistani Army has significantly improved their counter-terrorism
    capabilities, thanks in part to equipment we are providing them, and
    has played a vital role in enhancing security in this region.

                         OTHER U.S. OVERSEAS OPERATIONS

        Even as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, the United
    States will face a number of other challenges and demands for military
    capabilities. Throughout the world, U.S. forces provide stability,
    peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and hope; ultimately spreading
    democracy and progress and aiding in the Global War on Terrorism. U.S.
    Armed Forces have conducted operations ranging from our support to
    South and South East Asia for the Tsunami disaster, to keeping the
    peace in Kosovo. Of the over 2.6 million servicemembers serving in the
    Total Force, over 240,000 are deployed overseas in 54 countries or at
    sea. Additionally, 65,000 of these servicemembers are members of the
    Reserve or National Guard.
        Our Armed Forces still have many enduring missions and challenges
    around the world as we fight the Global War on Terrorism. The Joint
    Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti continues to
    conduct counter-terrorist and civil affairs operations in Eastern
    Africa. This contingent of 1,100 U.S. forces provides critical security
    assistance in support of civil-military operations and supports
    international organizations working to enhance long-term stability in
    this region.
        In April 2004, we successfully completed the Georgian Train and
    Equip Program, training over 2,700 Georgian troops to meet the rising
    threat of transnational terrorism in the Caucasus. DOD recently
    accepted a Georgian request for U.S. support in training additional
    troops for the United Nations Protection Force and to sustain their
    current troop rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, in
    support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, a small contingent of U.S.
    military personnel remains in the southern Philippines aiding their
    forces in training for counter-terrorism operations.
        Expanded Maritime Interdiction Operations (EMIO) have been a very
    successful international effort over the past year to interdict
    terrorists and their resources by sea. All geographic Combatant
    Commanders are successfully pursuing this initiative with particular
    focus on the Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa, the Mediterranean and
    throughout the Pacific Command. Beyond the goal of eliminating
    terrorist access to the maritime environment, EMIO has had other
    positive effects for the international community, including lower
    insurance premiums in the shipping industry, considerably less illegal
    immigration, and a reduction in piracy and narcotics smuggling.
        The Korean peninsula continues to be a region of concern. North
    Korea's military is the world's fifth largest and remains capable of
    attacking South Korea with little further preparation. Our goals are
    for North Korea to dismantle their nuclear programs in a verifiable
    manner, eliminate their chemical and biological weapons programs,
    reduce their conventional threat posture, and halt their development
    and proliferation of ballistic missiles. North Korea announced its
    withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January
    2003, and made clear its intentions to pursue its nuclear weapons
    program. To deal with the threat presented by North Korea's nuclear
    program, the United States has steadfastly pursued a multilateral
    diplomatic solution through the Six-Party talk process. There have been
    three rounds of the talks to date, the last occurring in June of 2004.
    North Korea has refused to return to the talks, citing United States
    ``hostile policy,'' despite our government's clear and unequivocal
    statements that the United States has no intent to invade or attack
    North Korea.
        North Korea is also one the world's leading suppliers of missiles
    and related production technologies, having exported to countries in
    the Middle East and North Africa as well as Pakistan. North Korea is
    expected to increase its nuclear weapons inventory by the end of the
    decade and continues to invest heavily in ballistic missiles and the
    infrastructure to support them. Taken together, North Korea's actions
    constitute a substantive threat to global security.
        The United States remains committed to maintaining peace and
    stability on the Korean Peninsula. We provide military deterrence and
    defensive capabilities in combination with our South Korean ally and
    through maintaining strong military and diplomatic ties with our
    regional partners. The United States and Republic of Korea (ROK)
    alliance remains strong, and we are improving our overall combat
    effectiveness while eliminating dated infrastructure and reorganizing
    our footprint to lessen the burden on the people we are defending. We
    still need to resolve a number of issues, but there is no doubt that
    the alliance is enduring, as is the U.S. commitment to the defense of
    the Republic of Korea. The Republic of Korea is a major contributor to
    the Coalition in Iraq, providing over 3,300 troops.
        Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons and the implications of
    their being a nuclear-equipped state sponsor of terrorism adds
    substantially to instability throughout the Middle East. While I hope
    that the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
    European Union will deter and dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear
    weapons program, I have no long-term basis for optimism. So far, there
    have been no signs that Iran will give up its pursuit of uranium
    enrichment capability. I am also concerned with the Iranian
    government's continued attempts to influence the political process in
    Iraq and marginalize U.S. assistance in Iraq and throughout the region.
        We must stay focused on the enormous global threat posed by the
    proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Although
    operationally deployed nuclear weapon numbers are declining in Russia
    and the United States because of treaty commitments, we continue to
    prioritize the safety, security and accountability of these types of
    weapons. Furthermore, we project a slow increase in other states'
    inventories. We are particularly troubled about North Korea's and
    Iran's on-going nuclear weapons-related activities. The trend toward
    longer range, more capable missiles continues throughout the world. We
    believe that some chemical and biological warfare programs are becoming
    more sophisticated and self-reliant, and we fear that technological
    advances will enable the proliferation of new chemical and biological
    warfare capabilities.
        Fighting the proliferation of WMD is a challenging worldwide
    problem and is one of my greatest concerns. Terrorists have stated
    their desire and intent to obtain WMD. While most of this proliferation
    in the past was state-sponsored, proliferation by companies and
    individuals is growing. The revelations about the AQ Khan international
    and illicit nuclear proliferation network show how complex
    international networks of independent suppliers with expertise and
    access to the needed technology, middlemen, and front companies can
    successfully circumvent domestic and international controls and
    proliferate WMD and missile technology. Within DOD, the SecDef has
    tasked the U.S. Strategic Command to synchronize our efforts to counter
    WMD and ensure the force structure and the resources are in place to
    help all combatant commands defeat WMD.
        Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) operational activities are
    central to DOD efforts to counter proliferation of WMD. We will
    continue to work with key countries to develop expanding circles of
    counter proliferation cooperation. We have been very successful in the
    last year. Today, more than 60 nations have endorsed the principles of
    PSI, with a number of others expressing willingness to cooperate in PSI
    efforts. 19 nations form the PSI Operational Experts Group. We are
    conducting PSI exercises around the world to enhance international
    interdiction capabilities and to serve as a deterrent to curtail the
    proliferation of WMD and the means to deliver those weapons. In October
    2003, our WMD counter proliferation efforts provided a key motivation
    for Libya's abandonment of its WMD programs and helped speed the
    dismantling of the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. The key to
    success in combating WMD proliferation remains committed international
    partnership.
        Today, the NATO Alliance is the most important and capable security
    alliance in the world. NATO commitment across the globe, to include
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been very good. However, there
    is room for improvement. Lack of defense funding by NATO Allies places
    a strain on the Alliance and our collective defense capability. Despite
    the general agreement that nations would hold their defense budgets at
    no lower than 2 percent of their gross national product, unfortunately,
    today, 50 percent of the nations in the Alliance are below 2 percent.
    This inadequate spending threatens NATO's ability to transform and
    adequately meet the Alliance's commitments. Additionally, member
    governments place numerous caveats on the use of their forces,
    rendering these forces less effective. For example, during the unrest
    in Kosovo last March, governmental caveats kept some countries from
    responding to the crisis. Finally, NATO needs to create a decision-
    making process that supports time sensitive requests. NATO forces have
    been slow to respond to security challenges because the NATO
    bureaucracy was too slow to react. Even with these deficiencies that
    need to be addressed, NATO has proven indispensable in today's security
    environment, and has committed itself to improving its capability.
        Operations in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina stand as the
    definitive examples of how NATO can bring peace and stability to war-
    torn regions. Additionally, the NATO Response Force (NRF) reached its
    initial operating capability last October. The NRF gives NATO a joint
    force tasked to quickly deploy and execute the full spectrum of NATO
    missions. The Alliance's most recent success occurred in December when
    NATO concluded its first successful peacekeeping mission in its
    history. The successful Stabilization Force Mission in Bosnia-
    Herzegovina was brought to completion after 9 years and, at its peak,
    consisted of over 60,000 Allied troops. In total, over 500,000 NATO
    soldiers from 43 nations and 90,000 U.S. troops participated in
    operations that set the stage to establish judicial, economic, and
    governmental systems leading to self-governance in Bosnia and
    Herzegovina. NATO and the United States will remain engaged in Bosnia,
    where NATO has established a new headquarters that will have the lead
    role in supporting Bosnian defense reform. NATO forces will continue to
    hunt for war criminals, and will prevent terrorists from taking
    advantage of Bosnia's fragile structures. This NATO force will work
    closely with the newly created European Union (EU) Force and will
    retain access to the full range of military authorities provided under
    the Dayton Accords. The EU mission will focus on Bosnia's current
    security challenges, such as organized crime. This spring, the North
    Atlantic Council will review the Kosovo mission and the forces
    required. Based on this review, we will work with our NATO Allies to
    respond to the evolving security environment.
        Narco-terrorism presents a global threat to security, prosperity,
    and good governance. Through Counter Narco-Terrorism operations, the
    United States is building coalitions, training and equipping forces,
    and enhancing the capabilities of allies in the Global War on
    Terrorism. Ongoing U.S.-sponsored multilateral operations promote
    security, improve effective border control, deny safe havens and
    restrict the ability of the narco-terrorists to operate with relative
    impunity.
        Counter Narco-Terrorism (CNT) successes in Colombia over the last
    year have been exceptional. We appreciate recent Congressional action
    to increase the troop cap for DOD personnel operating in Colombia. This
    allows U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to maintain the flexibility to
    meet existing mission requirements while increasing information,
    logistic and training support to the Government of Colombia during the
    execution of Colombia's current Counter-Narco Terrorism campaign, Plan
    Patriota.
        With approximately 18,000 members, the Revolutionary Armed Forces
    of Colombia (FARC) is the largest Narco-Terrorist (NT) group operating
    in Colombia, followed by the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
    (AUC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). In the past year, through
    a combination of aggressive CNT operations and offers of amnesty,
    Colombian security forces engaged in Plan Patriota have killed or
    captured 10 senior ranking members of the FARC and have demobilized
    record numbers of Narco-Terrorism group members. The Colombian
    Government is engaged in a peace process with the AUC that has already
    resulted in the demobilization of over 4,000 combatants. As a measure
    of the improved quality of life in Colombia, in the last year,
    massacres committed by Narco-Terrorism groups against civilians have
    decreased 44 percent, kidnappings decreased 42 percent, and attacks
    against infrastructure have decreased 42 percent. Cocaine seizures have
    increased 43 percent while heroin seizures have increased 72 percent.
        In response to the devastating and tragic Tsunami last December,
    the U.S. military responded immediately with humanitarian assistance to
    South and South East Asia. We quickly established a Combined Support
    Force headquarters in Thailand. During the height of the humanitarian
    effort, more than 25 U.S. ships, 50 helicopters, numerous support
    aircraft and 15,000 U.S. troops were involved in delivering and
    distributing relief. Over 3,300 relief sorties were flown. Sailors,
    Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Coastguardsmen provided over 5000 tons of
    relief supplies including over 420,000 gallons of water. Working with
    local governments, NGOs and international organizations, servicemembers
    provided all facets of humanitarian assistance, including providing
    medical care, clearing debris, and repairing critical infrastructure.
    This operation was a tribute to the versatility, responsiveness and
    compassion of our joint forces.
        The U.S. Government has recently developed an excellent combating
    terrorism planning mechanism through the NSC-led Regional Action Plans
    for Combating Terrorism (RAP-CTs). These RAP-CTs are the primary
    vehicle for the Interagency to coordinate and deconflict Global War on
    Terrorism activities on a regional basis. This process is an
    Interagency success story, and the DOD is fully engaged in these
    planning activities.
        Our global operations show the remarkable versatility, flexibility,
    agility, and professionalism of our American Armed Forces and highlight
    our effectiveness in fighting the Global War on Terrorism. Very few
    nations can field a force capable of expertly conducting simultaneous
    combat, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations around the world,
    while maintaining the flexibility to seamlessly transition from one
    mission to another.

                               JOINT WARFIGHTING

        Our forces are the world's most capable, in large part because they
    are the best trained and equipped. They continually strive to be the
    best joint warfighters in the world, they work extremely hard and they
    are taking joint warfighting to the next level by working closely with
    our interagency partners. Our forces possess the requisite personnel,
    equipment, and resources to accomplish the military objectives outlined
    in the National Military Strategy. Our forces--whether forward
    deployed, operating in support of contingency operations, or employed
    in homeland defense--remain capable of executing assigned missions. But
    there are many challenges to meeting these commitments.
        Our Nation's number one military asset remains the brave men and
    women serving in our Armed Forces. They have the training, spirit and
    agility to use modern technology to form the world's preeminent
    military force. They have the dedication, courage, and adaptability to
    combat dynamic global threats. The Administration, Congress and DOD
    have made raising our servicemembers' standard of living a top
    priority, and I thank Congress for your tremendous support to our
    troops and their families during my tenure as Chairman.
        The President's budget includes a 3.1 percent increase in basic
    pay, which keeps military pay competitive. We must ensure the civilian-
    military pay gap does not widen and that we support our Armed Forces
    with pay befitting their experience level, skills, and service. Thanks
    again to your actions, the aggressive increases in Basic Allowance for
    Housing eliminated an 18.8 percent deficit over the past 5 years and
    allowed us to eliminate average out-of-pocket housing expenses this
    year. Danger area compensation and other combat-related initiatives
    passed into law have also had a positive impact, mitigating the
    challenges of retaining and compensating our servicemembers serving in
    combat. Benefit increases have helped close the pay gap, improve health
    care and housing, and significantly contributed to improving the
    quality of life of our forces. As fiscal challenges mount for the
    Nation, I stand ready to work closely with Congress and the
    Department's civilian leadership regarding future benefit increases.
    Close coordination will ensure that our limited resources are used
    effectively to sustain our all-volunteer force.
        DOD and Congress are working together to increase benefits for the
    survivors of deceased servicemembers. While no benefits can replace the
    loss of a human life, I agree that improvements are needed.
        Current stresses on the force are significant and will remain so
    for the near term. I am concerned with the wear and tear on our
    equipment, especially our vehicles. High operational and training tempo
    is putting up to 5 years worth of wear on equipment per year, placing a
    huge demand on maintenance, supply, depot repair and production. In
    some units, combat-related damage is high, and there is substantial
    equipment damage caused by the harsh environment in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Additionally, many units leave their equipment overseas
    when they return from deployment, requiring re-supply and
    reconstitution as they train for their next deployment.
        We continue to analyze our policies and make changes to mitigate
    readiness challenges to include how forces are selected for deployment,
    reserve mobilization, training, equipment wear and reset, unit
    reconstitution, and improving Command, Control, Communication, and
    Computer System infrastructures. Congressional support, both in the
    annual budget and supplemental funding, has been essential for
    continued operations, Army modularization, and recapitalization.
    However, many of the programs we have put in place take time to
    develop. We are currently addressing the significant stress in critical
    specialties in Combat Support and Combat Service Support, as well as
    Low Density/High Demand assets. Unit reconstitution of both equipment
    and trained personnel is also a challenging process. Our DOD fiscal
    year 2005 Supplemental request currently before the Congress is
    essential to all of these efforts, and I urge the Congress to act
    promptly and fully on this request.
        We continue to rely heavily on our Reserve and Guard personnel. Our
    Reserve Components are serving critical roles in OIF and OEF, the
    Global War on Terrorism, and Homeland Defense, as well as serving
    around the world in other operations and activities. Citizen-soldiers
    in the Reserve Component are an important link to the American people.
    Morale in both the active and Reserve Component remains high, and their
    support by the American people has never been higher. As of April 2005,
    Guard and Reserve personnel comprised 33 percent of our Force in Iraq,
    21 percent in Afghanistan, and 45 percent in Djibouti. We need to
    continue to review and update our processes to improve the efficiency
    and agility of our mobilizations. We are well aware of the strains on
    members, their families, and their employers, and we continuously seek
    better ways to support them.
        While we have made strides in improving predictability and benefits
    for our Reserve Component servicemembers and continue to pursue
    rebalancing initiatives--especially in low density and high demand
    forces--significant additional steps are underway. The Reserve
    Component Cold War-era processes and policies that have guided
    training, readiness, administration, pay and health benefits, personnel
    accountability and mobilization must be reformed and streamlined if we
    are to have the deployable and sustainable Reserve Component force that
    our Nation needs. I look forward to working with the new Congressional
    Commission on Guard and Reserve matters to chart the future course for
    our very important Reserve Component.
        In order to help compensate for the high-tempo force and materiel
    requirements associated with ongoing operations for the Total Force, we
    have revised many of our processes to improve readiness forecasting. We
    have identified Service and Combatant Command requirements, determined
    the scope of required reset actions, improved on forecasting demands,
    and addressed industrial base shortfalls. We have developed many of
    these solutions with the help of the Joint Quarterly Readiness Review
    process, and the DOD is developing a web-based Defense Readiness
    Reporting System. These efforts are part of an ongoing effort to
    improve our readiness reporting and responsiveness throughout the
    Services, the DOD and the Joint Staff.
        By using all of these tools, we have identified readiness
    challenges and will continue to refine our priorities to successfully
    carry out our missions. This year's budget submission and the
    supplemental request greatly mitigate some of these readiness
    challenges, but many will remain as we continue to engage in sustained
    combat operations.
        Because today's security environment demands a global perspective,
    in June 2004, SecDef approved a new Global Force Management process and
    designated Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) as the primary Joint Force
    Provider. These changes will ensure the warfighters get the right
    forces from the right sources, focusing globally instead of regionally.
    In the future, JFCOM will coordinate all conventional force sourcing
    recommendations, excluding those assigned to Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM), Strategic Command (STRATCOM), and Transportation Command
    (TRANSCOM). This is a new mindset. Integral to this new methodology is
    the Global Force Management Board. This board is composed of General
    Officer/Flag Officer-level representatives from the Combatant Commands,
    Services, Joint Staff and OSD who review emerging force management
    issues and make risk management recommendations for approval by the
    SecDef.
        The pace of operations around the globe since 9/11 has led to
    Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) and Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO) that are
    hard to sustain indefinitely in many specialties. As a risk mitigator,
    we have temporarily increased our end strength in the Army and Marine
    Corps. Making these personnel increases permanent is very expensive.
    Before making our currently increased level of forces permanent, we
    need to assess current force management initiatives and our future
    global commitments. Initiatives like the Army's transformation to a
    modular-based organization help accomplish this. Having the right force
    to meet today's threats is critical. The Quadrennial Defense Review
    will aid in this assessment and help us make informed decisions about
    the appropriate size and composition of our force structure and manning
    to achieve our strategic objectives.
        One of the readiness challenges facing our forces is adequately
    resourcing Combat Service and Combat Service Support billets. To help
    these stressed career fields, we are aggressively rebalancing our force
    structure and organizations. Through fiscal year 2011 we expect to
    rebalance mission and skills for over 70,000 billets in the Active and
    Reserve components. Additionally, we have approximately 42,000 military
    to civilian conversions planned. The conversions will free up military
    billets to help reduce stress on the force. Together, these initiatives
    rebalance over 110,000 billets with a primary focus on high-demand
    specialties, including civil affairs, military police, intelligence,
    and Special Forces.
        The DOD depends on the skills and expertise of its civilian
    workforce as a force multiplier. We simply could not perform our
    mission without the support, dedication, and sacrifice of our DOD
    civilian employees at home and overseas. To help simplify and improve
    the way it hires, assigns, compensates, and rewards its civilian
    employees, the DOD will implement the first phase of the National
    Security Personnel System this July. This system will improve the
    management of our civilian workforce, allowing for greater flexibility
    to support evolving missions.
        As of April 1, 2005, enlisted recruiting within the active
    components remains strong except for the Army, which is at 89 percent
    of their goal. Many factors contribute to the Army's recruiting
    challenge, including their fiscal year 2005 end-strength increase and a
    resulting increase in the total number of recruits needed in fiscal
    year 2005. In the Reserve Component, recruiting continues to be a
    challenge. Of the six Reserve Components, only the USMC Reserve and Air
    Force Reserve made their recruiting goals through March. Each Service
    and component has mitigating plans and is aggressively attacking the
    problem. The Army Reserve Components will continue to be particularly
    challenged since more active Army soldiers are staying in the active
    force, and of those who get out, fewer are joining the Army Reserve
    Component. We have increased the number of recruiters and restructured
    enlistment bonuses to help mitigate these challenges.
        The Services are on track to meet their annual end strength goals
    except for the Army Reserve Components and the Navy Reserve. The Army
    National Guard's end strength is currently at 95 percent and the Army
    Reserve's strength is 96 percent. The Navy Reserve is at 94 percent of
    its authorized end strength, which is on track to meet their target for
    fiscal year 2007.
        We also need to look very closely at the experience level and
    demographics of the people who are leaving the Armed Forces. The
    leadership skills and combat skills that our servicemembers are gaining
    while fighting this Global War on Terror are priceless. It takes years
    to train quality leaders, and we need today's best officers and NCOs to
    become tomorrow's senior leaders.
        The Army Stop Loss policy is vital to their efforts in the GWOT.
    This policy affects the Active Army forces in OIF and OEF, and Army
    National Guard and Reserve members assigned to units alerted or
    mobilized that are participating in OIF, OEF or Operation NOBLE EAGLE.
    Stop Loss currently affects alerted Active and Reserve soldiers
    typically from 90 days before their mobilization or deployment date,
    through their deployment, plus a maximum of 90 days beyond their return
    from deployment. Stop Loss is essential to ensuring unit integrity
    during combat operations. As authorized under Title 10, the size of
    future troop rotations will in large measure determine the levels of
    Stop Loss needed in the future. Initiatives such as Force
    Stabilization, Modularity and the Army's active and reserve component
    rebalancing should alleviate some of the stress on the force.
        Protecting our troops remains a top priority. The rapid production
    and distribution of Interceptor Body Armor to our forces in OIF and OEF
    was a tremendous success. 100 percent of U.S. Government civilians and
    U.S. military members in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and the Horn of
    Africa have had body armor since February of 2004. The Army has
    aggressively managed this critical item, accelerating production and
    fielding rates. The Army is now fielding Deltoid Auxiliary Protection
    armor and the Marine Corps is fielding Armor Protective Enhancement
    System to help protect shoulder and armpit regions that are not
    currently covered by Interceptor Body Armor. With your support, we will
    continue to work diligently to provide the best protective equipment
    for our troops.
        Clearly as essential as providing body armor for our troops is
    providing armored vehicles to transport them. Our successes in
    increasing armor production have recently allowed us to institute a
    policy that servicemembers leaving Iraqi forward operating bases must
    be in vehicles with armor protection, whether a Humvee, truck, or other
    tactical wheeled vehicle.
        The evolving threat in the Central Command Area of Responsibility
    (CENTCOM AOR) has significantly increased the requirements for the Up
    Armored Humvee and armor protection for all vehicles. In May 2003, the
    CENTCOM requirement for Up Armored Humvees was just 235. Their
    requirement is now over 10,000. CENTCOM has over 7,300 Up Armored
    Humvees, and the Army will meet the requirement of 10,000 by this July.
        There are three levels of armor protection for all tactical
    vehicles. A Level 1 vehicle is provided directly from the manufacturer
    with integrated armor protection against small arms, IEDs, and mines. A
    Level 2 vehicle is equipped with a factory built, add-on kit installed
    in theater, to provide similar protection. Level 3, is a locally
    fabricated armor kit. Level 3 provides comparable protection to Level
    2, excluding ballistic glass. All three levels meet detailed Army and
    Marine Corps specifications. Overall, of the more than 45,000 tactical
    wheeled military vehicles in CENTCOM, 87 percent have armor protection.
    As factory production of Level 2 kits has steadily increased to meet
    the changing requirement, the Army is replacing Level 3 with Level 2
    armor. To accelerate this transition, the Army has added two truck
    installation facilities, making a total of five facilities in theater
    dedicated to installing factory-produced protection to our vehicles.
    Navy and Air Force military and civilian personnel are continuing
    efforts to accelerate armor installation in Iraq and Kuwait.
    Additionally, the Army is applying Level 2 armor in the United States
    before units deploy.
        Even as we approach our goals for the number of armored vehicles in
    Iraq, the Army is fielding new capabilities to further protect our
    troops. Troops returning from Iraq are talking to industry leaders
    about better, and safer armor design and systems. We continue to refine
    the entire range of tactics, techniques, and procedures used to move
    needed personnel and supplies. For example, we have doubled the number
    of direct air delivery hubs in Iraq, and expanded intra-theater airlift
    to reduce the number of convoys traveling through high-risk zones.
    Since the beginning of these air-delivery initiatives earlier this
    year, we have been able to reduce the number of truck movements used to
    move equipment and supplies by 4,200. Because we cannot eliminate the
    risks entirely, we are rapidly developing systems to counter threats,
    including Improvised Explosive Devices. Overall, our efforts have been
    successful and are saving lives and limbs. With the continued strong
    support of Congress, we will continue to provide the best protection
    possible for our personnel.
        Combatant Commanders and Services continue to identify preferred
    munitions shortfalls as one of their areas of concern, including Laser
    Guided Bombs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions production. Supplemental
    funding and programmed budget authority have bolstered Joint Direct
    Attack Munitions 193 percent and Laser-Guided Bomb kits 138 percent in
    the past year, continuing to reduce the gap between requirements and
    available inventory. In the long-term, we need to continue to fund the
    development of weapons like the Small Diameter Bomb, Joint Air-to-
    Surface Standoff Missile, and Joint Standoff Weapon to build on our
    precision-delivery capabilities.
        Last year, the DOD developed overarching policy and procedures for
    managing contractors during contingency operations. Once reviewed and
    approved by the Department, these documents will greatly aid in
    coordinating contractor operations.
        The vision for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) can be
    summed up as delivering the right education, to the right people, at
    the right time, focusing on improved joint warfighting. Cold War
    threats and force structure were the building blocks for Joint Officer
    Management policies codified in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
    The requirement for JPME trained forces throughout different levels of
    seniority has grown significantly since the law went into effect. Over
    the last 3 years we have expanded JPME across the ranks and components
    to include an expansion of JPME phase two opportunities, JPME
    opportunities for enlisted personnel, junior officers starting with
    precommissioning, Reserve Component officers, senior enlisted advisors,
    and for two-and three-star general and flag officers. Training for
    Combatant Commanders is in the planning stage.
        As we redefine jointness with our changing roles and missions,
    Congress has played a vital role in adapting JPME to this new
    environment by tasking DOD in the National Defense Authorization Act
    for 2005 to develop a new strategic plan for joint officer management.
    We must develop leaders at all levels capable of effectively
    accomplishing our strategic and operational objectives. As an example,
    we are looking at the core competencies required for our Joint C4
    Planners and defining what it takes to train, educate and certify them
    in their profession, similar to our certification and training
    standards for our pilots.
        Providing opportunities for foreign military personnel to train
    with U.S. forces is essential to maintaining strong military-to-
    military ties. Whether through classroom training or major exercises,
    training and education received by our allies helps build and maintain
    skilled coalition partners and peacekeepers and affords many future
    leaders the opportunity to live in our culture and understand our
    values. Many of the sharp mid-grade foreign officers who attended U.S.
    military training and exercises in the past decades are leading their
    militaries and countries around the world today. Over the past 5 years,
    the IMET budget has nearly doubled, from $50 million in fiscal year
    2000 to nearly $90 million in fiscal year 2005. It is in our best
    interest to keep this important IMET process on track, and I thank
    Congress for continued support and funding of this important program.
        Because these training opportunities and military-to-military
    relationships forged among allies are so important, I am concerned with
    U.S. Government restrictions that limit these relationships. The first
    is the Visa restrictions that affect foreign military personnel
    visiting the United States for training. The second is legislative
    restrictions. One example is the restriction placed on countries
    affected by the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). ASPA's
    provisions ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and
    officials, but an unintended consequence has been a reduction in
    training opportunities with countries not supporting the Act.
        Anthrax represents a significant threat to our Forces and I fully
    support the resumption of the Anthrax vaccine program. DOD is in full
    compliance with the April, 2005 court order requiring DOD to explain to
    servicemembers their right to refuse the vaccine.
        Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current global
    environment have made the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (CCIF) a
    high demand asset for sourcing the combatant command's emergent
    warfighting needs. These funds allow the warfighting commanders to
    quickly mitigate financial challenges encountered during combat
    operations. Combatant Commanders use CCIF extensively and I support the
    full funding of this program to ensure we are responsive to the
    warfighter's short-fused needs.
        The CJCS managed Joint Exercise Program (JEP) provides the
    transportation funding that supports the Combatant Commanders' Joint
    and multi-national training which influences the Global War on
    Terrorism, and supports our theater security cooperation plans
    worldwide. Since 9/11, high OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO have forced the
    Combatant Commanders to reduce the Joint Exercise Program demand by 36
    percent. In response to this dynamic environment, the Joint Staff has
    changed the program to make it strategy based and more responsive to
    the warfighters requirements. This year, JEP is conducting 117
    exercises. 82 percent of these are focused on Theater Security
    Cooperation, preparation for OIF and OEF, and special operations forces
    activities, all of which are directly applicable to fighting the Global
    War on Terrorism. It is essential that Congress fully fund the
    Combatant Commanders' Joint Exercise Program.
        Our joint warfighting operations around the world have clearly
    shown that freedom of navigation, both on the sea and in the air,
    remains absolutely critical to military planning and operations and is
    vital to U.S. national security interests. I strongly support U.S.
    accession to the Law of the Sea Convention as the best means to protect
    our navigational freedoms from encroachment.
        We have many challenges facing our Joint Warfighting team as we
    enter our fourth year of sustained combat operations. I am acutely
    aware of the effects of operational demands on our Total Force. The
    Army Reserve recently highlighted that under current policies governing
    mobilization, training, and manpower management, they cannot sustain
    their current OPTEMPO demands and then regenerate their forces. This is
    a tough problem, but we have many initiatives in place to mitigate this
    and other challenges affecting our overall readiness status in 2005.
    Our Total Force can continue to support the National Security Strategy
    and this current high operational tempo, but we must analyze, refine
    and reassess our efforts so we can transform the force for the
    challenges of the 21st Century.

                             TRANSFORMING THE FORCE

        I am proud of the transformational efforts and successes in the
    U.S. military, but we must continue our efforts to meet the challenges
    facing our country today and in the future. We are a Nation at war, so
    one of our greatest challenges in the military is to transform while
    conducting joint warfighting in the Global War on Terror, protecting
    the United States from direct attack, and reducing the potential for
    future conflict. We must continue to invest heavily in transformation,
    both intellectually and materially.
        Transformation is not simply applying new technology to old ways of
    doing business. Transformation requires cultural change, new ways of
    thinking about problems, and changes in how we organize and train. I am
    proud of the innovation and initiative I see from our servicemen and
    women, both on headquarters staffs and in the field. The concept of
    Transformation is central to all our assessment and procurement
    processes. This year, we will work through three major processes--QDR,
    Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) and Integrated Global
    Presence and Basing Strategy--that have a long term, broad impact on
    our force posture.
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense is leading the 2005
    Quadrennial Defense Review process. The QDR will provide a
    comprehensive strategic plan that will set the standard for
    transforming the Armed Forces to ensure success against a wide range of
    national security challenges. This is the third Quadrennial Defense
    Review, and it is unique in that we have been engaged in sustained
    combat operations for the last 4 years. The QDR is underway and is
    scheduled to be released in February 2006. By law, the CJCS will assess
    the results, and risks, and make recommendations on the roles and
    missions of the DOD.
        I thank Congress for continued support of our Base Realignment and
    Closure process. Past BRAC efforts, in the aggregate, closed 97
    installations and affected many others within the United States.
    Through fiscal year 2001, these actions produced a net savings of $17
    billion and an annual savings thereafter of about $7 billion. In March
    of 2004, the SecDef and I reported to Congress that the Department had
    substantial excess capacity. While we recognize BRAC is a challenging
    process, clear evidence of this excess capacity, coupled with a history
    of savings from past BRAC efforts, makes the argument for completing
    BRAC 2005 all the more compelling. BRAC 2005 provides an excellent
    opportunity to further transform the DOD by comparing our
    infrastructure with the defense strategy. BRAC is a valuable tool for
    maximizing our warfighting capability and eliminating excess capacity
    that diverts scarce resources away from more pressing defense needs.
        One of our near-term transformational challenges is to better use
    the forces we have to provide needed capabilities to the Combatant
    Commander. The Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS)
    transforms the Cold War footprint into one focused on capabilities,
    employing CONUS-based rotational forces that are lean and agile. This
    strategy enables rapid power projection and expands global presence and
    theater security programs by combining quick deployment, CONUS-based
    forces, with strategically positioned overseas-based forces. This
    strategy reduces the requirement for overseas support infrastructure
    and forces. Fewer remote-duty tours and longer CONUS assignments will
    mitigate family stress. Complementing IGPBS is the Army's
    transformation to brigade-centric modular forces that will increase the
    number of brigades available to rotate overseas from 33 to at least 43
    active brigades by 2010.
        DOD has already made many changes to our global posture since the
    2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. The Combatant Commanders have
    continued to adjust our footprint to make our forward-stationed forces
    more relevant to our current and future challenges. These posture
    initiatives are not only about adjusting numbers, but also about
    positioning the right capabilities forward to meet our needs and
    security commitments, while enhancing allies' and partners'
    transformation efforts in support of the Global War on Terrorism and
    regional security initiatives. For example, the SecDef has already
    approved several reductions within EUCOM and U.S. Forces Korea. The
    DOD, with the help of the Interagency, is moving forward in discussions
    with allies and partners on other specific proposals. As these
    discussions mature we must address the facilities and infrastructure
    needed to enable these capabilities. Our requests for overseas military
    construction this year are consistent with these plans and support our
    Combatant Commanders' transformation initiatives. I encourage your
    support in funding these critical projects.
        We are reviewing many important weapon systems and DOD programs as
    we continue to transform. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget
    submission restructured or reduced some programs and force structure.
    We focused on supporting current operations, near-term readiness and
    critical transformational programs. Reductions targeted areas where we
    have capability overlap, or the near-term risk was deemed acceptable to
    fund higher priorities. We will examine all of these programs and
    issues during the Quadrennial Defense Review and through other
    assessment tools like the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. We will
    maintain sufficient combat capability to execute our National
    strategies as we transform the Armed Forces to counter increasingly
    dangerous, dynamic, and diverse threats.
        We are transforming across the force. In 2004, we took some big
    steps and made some difficult decisions, and we are already seeing
    positive results. Examples include the Army's restructuring into
    modular formations, and the Navy's continuing transformation of its
    force to include the restructuring of deployment cycles. Despite the
    demands of current operations, we remain focused on a wide array of
    transformational weapon systems and programs.
        Maintaining supremacy over our enemies in both combat aircraft and
    combat support aircraft is a top joint warfighting priority. The
    continued development and production of the F/A-22 Raptor, V-22 Osprey,
    C-17 Globemaster III, E-10 Battle Management, F/A-18 Super Hornet, P-8A
    Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, and UAVs are critical to maintaining
    this air supremacy. While some of these programs have been
    restructured, they remain very important joint warfighting platforms
    that are required to meet our National Security and military
    strategies.
        We need to continue to fully support the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    program. The F-35 is truly a joint aircraft, with three variants
    planned. This aircraft will be the mainstay of the next generation of
    the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and our allies' tactical aviation
    wings. The aircraft is in its 4th year of an 11-year development
    program, and will be a giant leap over the existing fighter and attack
    aircraft it is programmed to replace. The current design challenge is
    weight, which impacts performance requirements, particularly for the
    Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant. Design teams have worked
    diligently to solve the weight issue and the F-35 is on track to meet
    weight requirements at IOC. The DOD has moved the first planned
    production procurement to the right 1 year, to fiscal year 2012 for the
    USMC variant and fiscal year 2013 for the USAF/USN variant. DOD has
    also added extra money to development.
        To remain a truly global force, we must modernize our aging aerial
    refueling fleet. In November 2004, the Joint Resources Oversight
    Council approved the Air Refueling Aircraft Initial Capabilities
    document that identified a shortfall in our air refueling capability
    and provided a modernization, recapitalization, and transformation plan
    for the Air Force aerial refueling fleet. The Air Force is still
    studying alternatives. Based on the results of these studies, the DOD
    will develop a cost-effective strategy for sustaining this critical
    joint warfighting capability.
        The DOD continues to make progress in providing missile defenses
    for our homeland, deployed forces, friends and allies. The DOD placed
    six ground-based interceptors in Alaska and two in California to
    provide a rudimentary capability to defend the United States from
    ballistic missile attack. The system is undergoing operational
    shakedown concurrent with continued research, development and testing.
    Confidence in the system readiness will come from ongoing ground
    testing, flight-testing, modeling and simulation, war games and
    exercises. As we make progress in the program and refine our
    operational procedures, the SecDef will decide when to place the system
    in a higher state of readiness.
        Our maritime forces are aggressively pursuing their transformation
    efforts. The Navy is moving toward a more flexible and adaptable new
    generation of ships including nuclear aircraft carriers (CVN-21),
    destroyers DD(X), cruisers CG(X), the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the
    VIRGINIA-class fast attack submarine, and the enhanced aviation
    amphibious assault ship (LHA (R)). The Marine Corps is working in
    consultation with the Navy concerning the future maritime
    prepositioning force (MPF(F)). The fleet of the future will likely be a
    numerically smaller force, but one with greater combat capabilities.
    The Navy is continuing to study the overall capability and size mix
    required for the Navy of the future.
        Part of our transformation to a more lethal and agile force is our
    move toward Network Centric operations. Network Centric operations
    enable us to provide decisive combat power from a fully connected,
    networked and interoperable force. Central to this capability is the
    Global Information Grid (GIG). The GIG provides the backbone systems
    that provide global, end-to-end communications for DOD. The GIG will
    combine our future-force space and terrestrial C4 programs under one
    communications umbrella. Protecting the information on the GIG is also
    essential to warfighting operations, and our information assurance
    efforts continue to be a very high priority.
        DOD Space capabilities are integral to the broad range of military
    operations we face today, and essential to meeting the challenges of
    the future. These capabilities provide decisive advantages for our
    Nation's military, intelligence, and foreign policy. They help warn of
    terrorist attacks and natural disasters. To meet these needs, Joint
    force commanders must have integrated Command and Control systems to
    dominate the battlefield.
        Today, bandwidth demand exceeds our DOD space system capabilities,
    and our warfighting requirements continue to increase at a very high
    rate. More and more of our aging satellites are nearing the end of
    their expected life cycle. In response, DOD is developing new space
    communication systems such as the very important Advanced Extremely
    High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite program and the Transformational
    Communications Satellites (TSAT)/MILSATCOM program. AEHF is a critical
    system that will significantly increase our secure communication
    capabilities over the current Milstar system, and provide a bridge to
    TSAT. TSAT will provide a leap in our communications capabilities and
    will greatly enhance communications on the move, and assured command
    and control of our conventional and nuclear forces. It will allow
    small, mobile units to connect to the GIG anywhere in the world and
    will help provide persistent and detailed intelligence to the
    warfighters.
        The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) is a transformational
    software-programmable radio that will provide seamless, real-time
    voice, data, video and networked communications for joint forces. More
    than a radio replacement program, JTRS provides the tactical warfighter
    with net-centric capabilities and connectivity to the GIG. This new
    radio system is a significant improvement in capability and
    interoperability for the joint warfighters, and plays a critical role
    in networking our 21st century force.
        Internationally, we made progress last year negotiating with the
    European Union with regard to their Galileo global positioning
    satellite system. The United States and the EU signed an agreement in
    June 2004 that stipulates Galileo signal structures will ``cause no
    harm'' to our future military use of GPS. Several international working
    groups established by that agreement will soon assess how future GPS
    and Galileo signal structures will interact.
        Moving away from specific systems, there are several
    transformational concepts and programs. One of the most important goals
    of the Intelligence Reform efforts must be to ensure warfighters have
    unhindered access to intelligence to conduct their operations. We must
    be able to task national assets for intelligence to support the
    warfighter and enable users to pull and fuse information from all
    sources. As the roles and responsibilities of the intelligence
    organizations are refined, these changes must not weaken intelligence
    support to the warfighters. I strongly agree with the law's
    recommendation that either the Director of National Intelligence or the
    Principal Deputy Director be an active duty commissioned military
    officer.
        The information-sharing environment will be a force multiplier for
    countering terrorism by integrating foreign and domestic information
    into a single network. Initiatives such as incorporating Intelligence
    Campaign plans into Operational plans will inform the intelligence
    community what the warfighters need and greatly improve joint
    warfighters' use of intelligence.
        Many of the successes in the GWOT are a direct result of successful
    information sharing with our allies and coalition partners. Ongoing
    operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and Africa
    demonstrate both the importance and the shortfalls that exist in the
    timely sharing of intelligence. To be truly global in our fight on
    terrorism, we must continue to improve coalition command and control
    capabilities. To accomplish this, we have established a centralized
    multinational executive agent and a Joint Program Office to improve
    secure information sharing. Our goal is to incorporate multinational
    information sharing systems as an integral part of the Global
    Information Grid. Congressional support is needed as we continue to
    enhance our ability to network with our allies and global coalition
    partners.
        As I deal with the Interagency on a daily basis on national
    security issues, I firmly believe we need to become more efficient and
    effective in integrating the efforts of various government agencies. I
    was pleased to observe and advise on the successful creation of the
    Department of Homeland Security and the recent Intelligence reforms.
    These two reforms should be just the beginning of our reform effort in
    the Interagency. Unifying the Interagency will be incredibly important
    to our country as we fight the GWOT and face the changing threats of
    the 21st Century.
        In April 2004, the NSC Principals' Committee directed the
    establishment of Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and
    Stabilization at the State Department. This office will lead,
    coordinate, and institutionalize U.S. Government efforts to prepare for
    post-conflict situations and help stabilize and reconstruct societies
    in transition from conflict to peace. This is an important step because
    the Interagency has been challenged to meet the demands of helping
    post-conflict nations achieve peace, democracy, and a sustainable
    market economy. In the future, provided this office is given
    appropriate resources, it will synchronize military and civilian
    efforts and ensure an integrated national approach is applied to post-
    combat peacekeeping, reconstruction and stability operations.
        Last year I reported that we had shifted the focus of our Joint
    Warrior Interoperability Demonstration--now named Coalition Warrior
    Interoperability Demonstration--to Homeland Defense and Homeland
    Security requirements. The purpose of these demonstrations and
    warfighter assessments is to enable government and industry to join
    together in their use of Information Technology assets to solve
    Homeland Defense IT challenges. The goal is to field off-the-shelf
    products to meet Combatant Commander and Coalition Commander
    requirements in 12-18 months, greatly minimizing the normal acquisition
    timeline. I am happy to report that NORTHCOM, the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Guard Bureau,
    along with the Services and more than 20 countries, will participate in
    these programs this year.
        Joint Experimentation is central to transformation. Led by Joint
    Forces Command and involving Services, Combatant Commands, Government
    Agencies, and Multi-national partners, joint experimentation seeks to
    refine joint concepts and, ultimately, future joint force capabilities.
    Recent productive examples include UNIFIED QUEST 2004 and UNIFIED
    ENGAGEMENT 2004. In UNIFIED QUEST, the Army and JFCOM examined and
    assessed major combat operations and the very important transition to
    post-conflict. UNIFIED ENGAGEMENT was a joint, interagency, and
    multinational wargame that explored ways to sustain persistent
    dominance in the battlespace of the future. As we revise our joint
    concepts, we are incorporating results from these and many other
    experiments and wargames. These experiments and wargames have provided
    potential solutions to problems of joint force projection, multi-
    national and interagency operations, and decision making in a
    collaborative environment.
        We must be able to rapidly deliver combat forces to the Joint Force
    Commanders and sustain them in combat operations. The Joint Staff is
    working with JFCOM and TRANSCOM to integrate our Deployment and
    Distribution Process and to develop a Joint Theater Logistics
    capability (JTL). Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM
    highlighted our need for JTL and logistics integration. These programs
    will provide a more responsive force projection and sustainment
    capability to the warfighter.
        Another improvement to our logistics management processes is using
    state-of-the-art technologies like Radio Frequency Identification
    (RFID) technology. DOD used RFID during OIF as a supply-chain
    management tool to track supplies from the warehouse to the warrior.
    Other new technologies are helping us capture data at its source,
    modernize and transform our logistics systems, and improve the accuracy
    of data in our common operational picture, ultimately deploying
    resources to the warfighter more quickly.
        In November 2004, we finalized an instruction on joint doctrine
    development to move valid lessons learned more rapidly into doctrine.
    When joint doctrine needs to change, there are now mechanisms in place
    to change doctrine outside the normal revision process. One example of
    this expedited review is the JROC validation of OIF and OEF lessons
    learned. When the JROC validates recommended doctrinal changes, layers
    of bureaucracy are removed, and the warfighters receive updated
    doctrine more quickly.
        The Joint National Training Capability is an important Joint Forces
    Command-led program that will eventually encompass all joint training.
    This system became operational in 2004 and is beginning to link all
    training ranges, sites, nodes, and real and virtual events into a
    single network, allowing world-wide participation in training
    activities and integration of all joint training programs. For
    individual training, the Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution
    Capability also became operational in 2004. Managed and led by the
    Joint Staff, this project develops and shares up-to-date, critical
    joint military knowledge for education and training.
        DOD is in the midst of completing a Strategic Capabilities
    Assessment to review the progress in fielding the New Triad, which
    includes non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities, defenses, and
    responsive infrastructure. This assessment will help recommend the
    number and types of forces needed to meet the President's goal of
    reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons. We have begun to make
    significant reductions on our way to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally
    deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2012. This reduction is possible
    only if Congress supports the other parts of the New Triad, our
    defenses and responsive infrastructure. STRATCOM has revised our
    strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the
    fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible
    options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat
    adversaries in a wider range of contingencies.
        The transformational decisions we make today will have a lasting
    impact on our Nation's defense capabilities and strategic and tactical
    warfighting capabilities well into the 21st Century. These decisions
    will also have a lasting impact on our allies and coalition partners,
    who use our capabilities to improve many of their capabilities and
    technologies. Transformational decisions are difficult. We must make
    thoughtful, informed choices about systems and program that may be
    ``new and improved'' but not significantly transformational to keep up
    with our dynamic security environment. The Joint Chiefs understand this
    fully, and are leading our armed forces to transform.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We are a Nation at war. The demands placed on our Armed Forces this
    past year have been extensive, but our servicemen and women continued
    to perform superbly under conditions of significant stress and in the
    face of myriad challenges. I am tremendously proud of the men and women
    of the U.S. Armed Forces for their continued hard work and sacrifice
    and that of their families.
        This is a pivotal moment in our Nation's history and in world
    history. We must stay committed if we are to win the Global War on
    Terrorism and defend the United States and our national interests. Our
    way of life remains at stake, so failure is not an option. Our military
    is unwavering in our focus, resolve and dedication to peace and
    freedom. With Congress's continued strong support, our military will
    continue to effectively combat terrorism, counter the proliferation of
    WMD, help Iraq and Afghanistan build a stable and secure future,
    improve our joint warfighting capabilities, and transform our Force to
    meet future threats. I greatly appreciate your efforts and your focus
    to help the military meet its objectives and make the world a better
    and safer place for our citizens and the generations to follow.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        We will have a period now of 5 minutes apiece of our
    members here. I am informed that most members of the
    subcommittee are going to attend, so we have limited it to 5
    minutes.
        Let me recognize the chairman of the full committee first.

               EMPLOYER TREATMENT OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        There has been some concern expressed about the fact that
    those who serve in the Reserve components of the armed forces
    when they are coming back to civilian status are in some cases
    losing the opportunity to work in the jobs they had before they
    were deployed and went on active duty. To what extent is the
    Department undertaking to try to deal with that situation and
    help make it possible for reservists and guardsmen to serve our
    country in this time of need and at the same time be treated
    fairly by the private sector when they return?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, first of all I would say that
    the employers of America have been terrific in general across
    the country. I am sure there are always situations where that
    is not the case, but they have done a great many things to be
    supportive of members of the Guard and Reserve during the
    periods that they have been activated and when they return.
        As you know, reservists' jobs are protected by law under
    the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
    We have an organization within the Department of Defense that
    works directly with employers when a reemployment problem
    arises and there is a national committee for employer support
    of the Guard and Reserve that exists and functions. They
    contact employers and attempt to work out problems with
    informal means. If that fails, then there is a formal complaint
    process that can go forward in the Department of Labor, which
    has the responsibility for investigating and resolving any
    complaints under that statute.
        So I would say that I have heard of relatively few
    instances of problems and I hope that that is a reflection of
    the actual situation.

                     URGENCY OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

        Senator Cochran. We are working with our colleagues over on
    the House side to resolve differences on the supplemental
    appropriations bill that provides substantial funding for
    military operations in the global war on terror and
    particularly with respect to our deployments in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. We hope to complete action on that conference
    committee work this week, as you suggested in your opening
    statement. But what difficulty would the Department encounter
    if we are not able to do that, as we hope we can? Give me
    something I can pass on to the members of the conference
    committee as we meet today to try to light a fire under the
    process?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. We checked with the services and the
    Army estimates that--I guess this is, what April 27. They
    estimate that around May 5 some of the commands may have to
    stop hiring and stop ordering supplies and stop awarding
    contracts until the House-Senate conference has completed their
    work and the supplemental been dealt with by the President.
        The Army has already started slowing some obligations to
    try to make funds last so that they would not have to do that.
    Of course, once you start swinging funds around from one
    activity to another frequently it requires reprogramming, it
    requires inefficiencies that are unfortunate, that they have to
    be made up later.

                      MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL CAPABILITIES

        Senator Cochran. One of the concerns in some of our States
    is where we have industrial activities relating to shipbuilding
    or airplane manufacturing or other activities that provide
    armaments and equipment to the military forces, that in some
    cases there are substantial cutbacks in projected spending, so
    that the budgets that had been anticipated for building ships
    and some of these other activities are not what they are--what
    they were, they are not what they were expected to be, putting
    a lot of pressure on the ability of the employers to predict
    how many people they need to continue working at their
    shipyards and in other plants.
        Do you expect that there would be any change in the
    requests that we are beginning to hear, cutting back the number
    of ships that we need in the future or other armaments? How do
    you expect we are going to be able to maintain the efficiency
    in these industrial capabilities in the face of these
    unexpected cutbacks?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, the Navy has done a great deal
    of study on the shipbuilding, to take that specifically into
    account, and they now have some suggestions that are being
    considered by the Department of Defense and by the Congress,
    obviously. My anticipation is that they will have clarity and
    conviction in an appropriate time. The Quadrennial Defense
    Review also is something that is underway and that enters into
    this discussion.
        But one of the important things I would say is that if we
    look only at numbers of ships it seems to me that we miss
    something terribly important. The fact is that when we had a
    fleet of 485 ships we routinely were able to deploy 102 ships
    out of 485, and that is because of the way the fleet was
    managed. Large numbers were constantly under repair, the crews
    were on leave. The whole process was arranged that way.
        Today the fleet size is plus or minus 285 ships. It is low.
    On the other hand, we are routinely deploying 95 ships out of
    285, compared to 102 ships out of 485. So what is really
    important is what are you able to use, what is the useability
    of the fleet, not the total number. Clearly, the useability is
    about the same.
        Then the second question is the one I mentioned in my
    opening remarks, which was what can that ship do or what can
    that carrier battle group do? It can do three or four times as
    much as carriers and capabilities 10, 15, 20 years ago. So I
    think we need to look at capability. I do not deny that
    presence is important, but the deployability affects the
    presence issue.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The chair recognizes our ranking member, Senator Byrd, for
    5 minutes.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary. Thank you, General.
        One of my constituents, Mrs. Lisa Vance of Morgantown, West
    Virginia, contacted my office last week. She is the widow of a
    West Virginia National Guardsman killed in Afghanistan in May
    2002. She relates her story of the incredible burdens that she
    has had to face after her tragic loss. Mrs. Vance has gone
    through more trouble than any military widow ought to have to
    bear.
        Mrs. Vance reported that paperwork errors nearly cost her
    $50,000 in life insurance funds. She has never received the
    financial counseling to which she is entitled. She received no
    explanation of the health insurance benefits that she was
    eligible for immediately after her husband's death. A simple
    pay issue took 3 years to resolve. Some of the guidance Mrs.
    Vance received on important matters was based on Army field
    manuals that were more than 10 years out of date. At one point,
    her casualty assistance officer retired. No replacement ever
    arrived to assist her.
        The bottom line is that the casualty assistance officers
    who assist widows do not appear to have adequate training for
    the incredibly difficult job that they must perform. I do not
    question the dedication or commitment of the soldiers who must
    perform this job. There are questions about whether the
    military is giving these officers sufficient training to assist
    grieving widows in their hour of greatest need.
        General Myers, how much training is given to casualty
    assistance officers before they are sent out to care for
    grieving families?
        General Myers. You know, Senator Byrd, that is an issue
    that we follow very, very carefully. My suspicion is this is a
    unit-specific problem where the training either was not done
    properly or, for whatever reason, the proper leadership was not
    provided. I do not think this is a problem that is systemic. I
    will get you the facts for exactly how much assistance, but
    from the information that I get this is obviously an isolated
    case and it is a very bad case and nobody should have to go
    through that.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        The goal of our Casualty Assistance programs is to provide
    prompt reporting, dignified and humane notification and
    efficient and compassionate assistance to family members,
    including a thorough review of the death benefits, compensation
    and entitlements. We have confirmed that our National Guard
    casualty assistance officers or representatives receive the
    same comprehensive training and use the same policies,
    schoolhouses and syllabi as their active duty counterparts.
        The Military Services ensure that personnel assigned
    casualty assistance or notification responsibilities receive
    appropriate training. Training is conducted in multiple ways:
    course of instruction at formal schools; classroom instruction;
    training videos; video teleconferencing; and distance learning
    via the Web; review of applicable Service Directives and
    Instructions; hard copy casualty assistance guides.
        Assignment as a casualty assistance officer can be one of
    the most challenging and emotionally charged duties a Service
    member will ever assume. Therefore, we train and prepare them
    as much as possible to perform their mission well. Assistance
    officers can be assigned from the unit of the deceased, from
    the parent installation, or from the unit closest to where the
    family is located. As a result of this dedicated and
    professional assistance and a genuine desire to assist the
    families of a fallen brother or sister, we often hear from the
    families that they consider their Casualty Assistance Officer
    part of the family.
        In those cases where we discover that the assistance
    provided was less than adequate, immediate actions are taken to
    address any unresolved issues or problems with the family.
        Question. Do members of the National Guard receive the same
    training as their active duty counterparts?
        Answer. Yes. The National Guard receive the same level of
    training provided to the active force members. When a member of
    the National Guard becomes a casualty, a trained casualty
    officer, who may be either active duty or National Guard,
    nearest to the next-of-kin is assigned to the family.
        Question. Have there been any changes to the training for
    casualty assistance officers based upon the experiences of war
    widows like Mrs. Vance?
        Answer. Yes. To ensure that our policies and programs stay
    current and address the needs of our Service members and their
    families, we chair a Joint Casualty Advisory Board that meets
    three times a year to review, assess, and recommend appropriate
    changes. Along with the normal attendees at these meetings, the
    Casualty Heads from each of the Military Services, the Joint
    Staff, representatives from other Federal agencies such as the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security
    Administration, and non-profit organizations, we have added
    family support groups and surviving family members. This
    partnership approach on policy development, especially
    involving those who have experienced a loss and received the
    follow-on assistance, guarantees our program is addressing the
    required services to meet the needs of our Service members and
    their families.
        Feedback from family members has assisted the Military
    Services in updating their casualty assistance training
    programs. Specifically, training improvements have included
    increased emphasis on providing family members with factual
    information on their loved one's case without speculation,
    responding to family member questions in a more timely manner,
    ensuring family members have a complete understanding of their
    benefits and entitlements, expediting the return of personal
    effects, and maximizing the use of chaplain support in the
    notification and assistance process.
        Additionally, family member input has resulted in new
    policies pertaining to the public release of casualty
    information, additional resources for bereavement counseling
    for extended family members, and expedited claims processes
    from the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs,
    and the Social Security Administration.

        Senator Byrd. Do members of the National Guard receive the
    same training as their active duty counterparts?
        General Myers. They should, absolutely.
        Senator Byrd. Are there adequate numbers of chaplains in
    the armed forces to comfort the war widows?
        General Myers. I would say for the most part there are,
    although there is and has been for some time a lack of adequate
    Catholic priests in the armed forces chaplaincy, as there are a
    lack of priests in the civilian community. It has been a
    continuing problem. But I think in other denominations that is
    not a problem.
        Senator Byrd. General Myers, do you feel that there is a
    need to increase the chaplains to compensate for the strain of
    overseas deployments, and is there a need for more funding to
    provide more chaplains for the armed services?
        General Myers. It has not been brought to my attention that
    that is a shortfall that needs to be addressed, so I cannot
    answer that question.
        [The information follows:]

        Upon further analysis, there are chaplain shortages in the
    Reserve Components (RCs) of the Services. We need to
    concentrate recruiting efforts so that RCs are properly manned
    with chaplains to serve the needs of deployed Service members,
    as well as Service members and families at home. RC chaplain
    manning expressed as a percentage of the requirement is:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Percentage
                                                                    Manned
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army National Guard.........................................          60
    Army Reserve................................................          72
    Navy Reserve................................................          84
    Air National Guard..........................................          89
    Air Force Reserve...........................................          95
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Chaplain retention is very high in all components. The
    lower manning numbers reflect the challenge in recruiting
    civilian clergy as chaplains and mirror the challenges that the
    Army National Guard and Army Reserve are having in recruiting
    all types of Soldiers. Current initiatives to recruit more RC
    chaplains include:
        1. Developing legislation to provide a seminary tuition
    loan repayment plan for those who serve 3 years in the Army
    Reserve or Army National Guard chaplaincies after graduation.
    If adopted, this legislation would require a funding increase.
        2. Increasing recruiting efforts in all components, with
    recruiters visiting seminaries and attending faith group annual
    conferences.
        3. Increasing efforts to recruit prospective chaplain
    candidates from Service members with college degrees who are
    leaving active duty to attend seminary.
        With these initiatives in place, and the continued support
    of Congress, we expect to see an increase in RC chaplains to
    better support our Service members and their families.

        Senator Byrd. Have there been any changes to the training
    for casualty assistance officers based upon the experiences of
    war widows like Mrs. Vance?
        General Myers. You bet, because the benefits have changed
    over time and so that is a program that is continually updated
    by the services who are responsible for that.
        Senator Byrd. How can Congress assure that the widows of
    troops who were killed in Iraq in recent days will not have the
    same problems that Mrs. Vance encountered?
        General Myers. Well, it is something we have addressed from
    the day that we started this war on terrorism and against
    violent extremism. In an effort to try to do that, we have--to
    help, if everything else fails, we have an operation called
    Military One Source that has been set up here, actually I think
    in Virginia. It is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to
    provide the kind of assistance that you just mentioned. So if
    they are not getting the help, if people are not getting the
    help they need on any question, they have a toll-free telephone
    number, Internet, and e-mail access, and we will refer the
    questions to the appropriate authorities and follow up to make
    sure it gets done.
        As you know, also early on we had some questions about the
    Reserve components' ability to provide the kind of information,
    not just on casualties, but basic information to the families.
    This is because in the Reserve component case many of the
    families are not co-located on a base or a camp or a station or
    a post, and the Reserve component has really stood up to that
    requirement and provides excellent, I think, information to the
    families and the employers, for that matter, of those that are
    employed.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, General Myers.

          SERVICES AND COUNSELING PROVIDED TO SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS

        Secretary Rumsfeld, are you satisfied with the services and
    counseling provided to war widows?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Byrd, any time one hears a
    story that you have cited about Mrs. Vance, obviously you
    cannot be satisfied. The points that General Myers made, there
    are a variety of ways to try to assist people in the event that
    there is a breakdown in the system. There is frequently
    breakdowns in any system, as we all know.
        One other thing that exists today is an organization called
    AmericaSupportsYou.mil, where you can go on the Internet and
    you can find out ways that citizens in communities are helping
    people who may have difficulties. It is a terrific web site
    because it shows all the things that are being done around the
    country to assist people who are connected with the military
    and to support them as well as to support the troops.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, what are the areas that need
    improvement and what is being done about it?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, the things that have been done,
    in addition to what General Myers has cited here, this family
    support activity, there is for the really injured, there is a
    separate activity that is designed to assist people who come
    back with severe injuries of any type and to assist them and
    their families in that period after they begin to become
    disconnected from the military in the event that they do
    disconnect from the military, although I must say there are an
    increasing number of severely injured people who are staying in
    the military and being able to continue to serve.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator. We will come back
    later, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Feinstein is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        General, let me thank you very much for your service to our
    country. I know the days have been tough and long and I just
    want you to know that Californians are very grateful and thank
    you for your service.

                                F-22 ACQUISITION

        I would like to ask two questions on procurement, having to
    do with the F/A-22 and the C-130J. If I understand the
    President's budget correctly, it is going to complete the
    procurement program for the F/A-22 with the production of 179
    planes instead of the original 750. It will end the program in
    2008 instead of 2011. Are you effectively then truncating this
    program and completing it by 2008?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I would describe it slightly
    differently. Last year's planned purchase of F/A-22s was 277
    and that has been brought down to 170 aircraft through 2008.
    This is a very fine aircraft from everything I can tell. It is
    still in process, however, and it is very expensive.
        As a result, the Quadrennial Defense Review is designed to
    in this case determine the number of wings, whether a single
    wing or one and a half wings or two wings might be appropriate.
    Until that work is done, we will not know whether--what number
    between 170 and something like 277 might be appropriate.
        I think that as we come out of the QDR, where we are
    looking at other capabilities that relate to air dominance, we
    ought to have a better idea of what portion of the air
    dominance role would be played by a F/A-22 from a cost benefit
    standpoint.
        Senator Feinstein. So it is 170 by 2008. Are you figuring
    the additional aircraft at $250 million per plane?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The last number I heard was about $250
    million. $257 million is the latest rounded number.

                               C-130J ACQUISITION

        Senator Feinstein. Now let me ask you about, if I can, the
    C-130J. You end procurement in 2006. You are going to be 100
    short of the original purchase. It is a $3.5 billion saving; $1
    billion is just in cancellation of the contract--is that true?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I am not certain of that number. I know
    there has been a good deal of debate about what the
    cancellation or termination of a multi-year contract would cost
    and the issue is open. We have said that there is some
    additional information that has become available subsequent to
    putting the President's budget to bed and at some point in the
    weeks ahead we will have better information. To the extent it
    suggests that any adjustments ought to be made in what we
    propose, obviously we will come back to the Congress with those
    proposals.

                        ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that.
        Now, very smart, Mr. Secretary. You have apparently divided
    the money for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator between the
    energy budget and the defense budget, with $4.5 million in one
    and $4 million in the other. As you know, in the energy budget,
    the funding was deleted last year. So this year you have
    divided it.
        In March, the Secretary of Energy was asked on the House
    side about how deep he thought the bunkerbuster could go and he
    said ``a couple of tens of meters maybe.'' He was asked if
    there was any way to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to
    trap all fallout, and he said: ``I do not believe that. I do
    not believe the laws of physics will ever permit that.''
        I asked him that same question when the Energy
    Appropriations Subcommittee met just a few weeks ago. He said
    essentially the same thing. It is beyond me as to why you are
    proceeding with this program when the laws of physics will not
    allow a missile to be driven deeply enough to retain the
    fallout which will spew in hundreds of millions of cubic feet
    if it is at 100 kilotons.
        So I am mystified by the fact that the money was deleted
    last year, but you are back this year and you have split it
    into two budgets.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Feinstein, you make a mistake
    by saying I am very smart by splitting it. I had no idea.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I figure you figured you have a
    better chance in this subcommittee than you do in Energy.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Maybe just lucky rather than smart.
        Let me just take a minute on the subject. It is an
    interesting subject. There are some 70 countries that are
    currently pursuing underground programs. Today dual use
    equipment that is available anywhere in the world to anybody
    who wants it can dig in 1 day a distance in solid rock longer
    than a basketball court and twice as high as the basket, one
    machine, 1 day, underground in solid rock.
        Seventy countries are pursuing activities underground. So
    the question comes what ought our country to do about that or
    do we want to think about, study, the idea of having a
    capability of dealing with that. At the present time we do not
    have a capability of dealing with that. We cannot go in there
    and get at things in solid rock underground.
        The proposal--the only thing we have is very large, very
    dirty, big nuclear weapons. So the choice is not do we have--do
    we want to have nothing and only a large dirty nuclear weapon
    or would we rather have something in between? That is the
    issue. It is not the way your question characterized it in my
    view.
        Now, are we proposing a specific weapon? No. We are
    proposing a study. We are proposing that some work be done,
    analysis, not nuclear explosion work but a study, to see if we
    are capable of developing or designing something that would
    give us the ability to penetrate, not with a large nuclear
    explosion but penetrate either with a conventional capability
    or with a very small nuclear capability in the event that the
    United States of America at some point down the road decided
    they wanted to undertake that kind of a project.
        It seems to me studying it makes all the sense in the
    world.
        General, do you want to comment?
        General Myers. I would make the exact same point. The
    choice is between targets today that we have weapons assigned
    against, underground targets, which the only capability we have
    is a big weapon. What we are looking at and what we have
    proposed in the study is can some of the smaller weapons be,
    can the case be hardened enough to get enough penetration to
    have some impact against these targets without going to the
    option that nobody likes, which is a more robust, a bigger
    weapon? And the issue also is, it is a study and it is not to
    design a new weapon.
        Senator Feinstein. I thank the Chair.
        I would just appreciate a clarification. Are you saying
    that the 100 kiloton bomb is out, that you are not looking at
    the development of a 100 kiloton bomb, but it is a low yield
    bomb?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. My understanding is that they are not
    talking about making any weapon. They are talking about a study
    that relates particularly to penetration.
        General Myers. And they are looking at specific weapons
    that are in the inventory and can the case be made hard enough
    on those particular weapons to get the kind of penetration they
    think will be effective against these deeply buried and
    hardened targets.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Specter is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Senator Feinstein. My time is up. Thank you.
        Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much for your service. Beginning with the
    base closure issues, Pennsylvania has been very hard hit in the
    past, characterized by the closing of the Philadelphia Navy
    Yard, for which we still have not recovered in our State as
    there was some proliferation of contracts which went out from
    that installation. I am going to be submitting to you questions
    for the record and I do not want to ask a question now to take
    up the time. I want to move on. But I do hope that
    consideration will be given to the historic import of the bases
    in Pennsylvania, which of course has been around for a long
    time as a State. Illustrative of that is the War College, where
    there is enormous pride in the community Carlisle,
    Pennsylvania, where it is located. When the President decided
    where he wanted to go, he went to the War College with great
    pomp and ceremony, made quite a point that only two Georges as
    sitting Presidents marched into Carlisle; one was George
    Washington on a great stallion, a great portrait, and the other
    was President Bush.
        So I would just hope that real consideration would be given
    to the tradition and the economic factors, where people are
    biting their nails in Pennsylvania as to what is going to
    happen next after we have had so many closures.
        This afternoon a conference committee will be sitting on
    the $81 billion request by the Department of Defense, and it
    has been broadly supported. We are appreciative of what you are
    doing, Mr. Secretary, and what you are doing, General, and what
    the troops are doing, and we are going to back you. But there
    is a lot of disquiet out there among the people as to what is
    happening in Iraq and disquiet as to what is happening to our
    discretionary budget.
        I chair a subcommittee which is responsible for education,
    health care and worker safety and it has been cut by almost a
    full percent, and with the inflation factor I am about $7
    billion short. That makes it very, very tough to sell when you
    have the National Institutes of Health (NIH), health care
    programs, Pell grants, and education.
        The question that I have for you, Mr. Secretary, comes up
    on the Rand report. It was summarized in the Washington Post
    and it was highly critical, as is known. This is a report, at
    least according to the Post, that was prepared for you and that
    you thought was worthy of careful consideration.
        We had the situation with General Shinseki some time ago,
    who had made a prediction about the number of troops which
    would be necessary to handle post-Iraq problems, and I will not
    characterize the response to General Shinseki, but it was not
    one of approbation as to what happened. But the Rand study, and
    I will not quote it extensively, criticizes DOD for a lack of
    political-military coordination and actionable intelligence in
    dealing with the counter-insurgency campaign.
        Well, it is just highly critical. I have a three-part
    question for you, Mr. Secretary. Was General Shinseki right,
    number one? Number two, is the Rand report right? Number three,
    what has been or will be done to meet the questions raised by
    the Rand report?

                         NUMBER OF TROOPS FOR IRAQ WAR

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I will start and General Myers
    may want to comment on it. But I think that the first thing I
    would say about the troop strength that General Shinseki was
    asked about in a congressional committee, and his response was
    that he thought it would take, as I recall--and I am going the
    paraphrase; I do not have it in front of me. His response after
    being asked two or three times was that he thought it might
    take roughly the same number of troops to deal with the country
    after major combat operation as it would take to prevail in the
    conflict, and I believe he then said several hundred thousand.
        It turned out that General Franks had several hundred
    thousand ready to go in and he also had a plan that if he
    decided he did not need them he would have excursions, escape
    plans, so that they would not go in. We would put in what he
    believed to be the right number.
        General Franks, General Abizaid, General Myers, General
    Pace proposed the correct number of troops and--correction.
    They proposed a number of troops. That is the number we went
    with. That is the number we have in there today. It is
    perfectly possible for anyone in or out of Government to
    critique that and say: Gee, I think there ought to be more or
    there ought to be less. But the fact of the matter is that the
    military experts on the ground from the beginning have said
    what they thought the number ought to be.
        The tension that they have balanced is this. The more
    troops you have, the more targets that you have and the more
    people you might get killed. The more troops you have, the more
    of an occupying power you are, the heavier footprint, the more
    force protection you need, the more logistics you need, and the
    more intrusive you are on the people of that country.
        Now, the Soviets had 300,000 people in Afghanistan and they
    lost, and we had 20,000 or 30,000 people in Afghanistan and it
    is coming out pretty darn well. So I must say I am tired of the
    Shinseki argument being bandied about day after day in the
    press.
        Senator Specter. It was not an argument. It was a question.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I understand that. But the fact
    is that we have done what the generals on the ground believed
    to be the right thing. I believe they are right and I think
    that the progress that was made in Afghanistan demonstrates
    that, and I think the progress being made in Iraq demonstrates
    that. When the President went around the room and asked if all
    the chiefs--well, I will let you describe it, General. You were
    there.
        General Myers. Well, of course before major combat in Iraq
    the Commander in Chief had all his service chiefs, and as a
    matter of fact at a separate session all of General Franks'
    commanders and General Franks, and asked if anybody had any
    reservations, if they had everything we needed, and if we were
    ready to go. And everybody gave a thumbs-up on that. So that is
    how that process worked.
        I would say on----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. And General Shinseki was there in the
    room.
        General Myers. Certainly I do not think anybody argues----
        Senator Specter. And he was silent? Was General Shinseki
    silent in the face of that question put to him, or in a room
    where he was present?
        General Myers. I cannot remember. He certainly did not
    bring up a couple hundred thousand. We were all--all the
    service chiefs were in total support of General Franks' plan,
    the numbers that we had planned, all of that. Yes, we were all
    on board. There was nobody--there were no outliers.
        On the other hand, just one more time: General Shinseki was
    in front of a Senate committee. He was asked a question and he
    said several times, you know, that is really not my business, I
    would need to talk to the combatant commander and I have not
    done that, and when pressed offered a number.
        He is an experienced, very experienced Army officer. He had
    a lot of experience in the Balkans and he gave them a number
    based on his experience and so forth. I do not think he would
    ever say that he was prepared to go to the bank with that
    number. He was providing the number when asked, when asked
    several times, and it is his right to give that number. We had
    lots of discussions later on about what is the right number and
    is the force strength appropriate for the tasks and the mission
    that we had inside Iraq. In the end we all agreed that the
    plan--and by the way, the plan was developed over some time in
    a very iterative fashion between the Commander in Chief, the
    Secretary of Defense, and the military leadership, and evolved
    over time. I mean, it changed dramatically from the first time
    we ever got together with General Franks on this issue, which
    was before any thought of going into Iraq was actually on the
    table, until we finally went in. So it was a long process.
        I would only comment on the Rand report, I am aware of it.
    I have not read it. I have read the executive summary. It is in
    the joint staff, in my case it is in the joint staff, and we
    are looking at each of those, those pieces.
        One of the things that has characterized this effort both
    in Afghanistan--well, in the last 3\1/2\ years, different from
    previous I think is that we have really paid attention to
    trying to capture what we have done right and what we have done
    wrong, the lessons learned process, Senator Specter. It is very
    aggressive, and when I say aggressive we have people in Iraq
    today, but we have had them since major combat, that have been
    participating with the forces there, helping them, but also
    capturing lessons learned for Joint Forces Command to compile
    so we can then take action.
        So we have I think a very good process on how we capture
    those and then try to internalize them, put the resources to
    them and solve the problems. That is what we are all about, and
    the Rand report will help in that regard. I do not have
    specific comments on it today.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. There is not a month that goes by that
    we do not look at troop levels in Iraq and troop levels in
    Afghanistan and ask people what is the right number, what is
    the best way to use them, what are the advantages and
    disadvantages of more or less. It is a constant process for us.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye is recognized.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, we are relying heavily on
    our National Guard and the Reserves, so much so that some are
    suggesting that the Reserve component is already broken.
    Furthermore, it is becoming much more difficult to recruit and
    retain our ground forces and for the first time in many years
    the Army and Marine Corps are not meeting their recruiting
    targets, and there are some who are already discussing the
    draft.

                        STATUS OF OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL

        In your view, what is the current status of our military
    personnel, including end strength and recruiting and retention
    numbers?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, generally retention has been
    fine in the services. With respect to recruiting, there has not
    been a problem of recruiting in the Air Force or the Navy. The
    Army and the marines have missed their targets by relatively
    small amounts. A couple of reasons for that. One is the targets
    are up. We are increasing the size of the Army and we are
    increasing the size of the Marines.
        A second reason is because retention of people who have
    served in Iraq and Afghanistan is high. They are the normal
    people that would be recruited into the Guard and Reserve and
    instead many of them are being retained because our troop
    levels are higher. So we are not surprised that that exists,
    and as a result we have had to deploy additional recruiters and
    provide additional incentives and there is some debate within
    the experts who do this as to whether or not they will meet
    their goals by the end of the year, the fiscal year.
        I do not know if they will or not for the Army or the
    marines in terms of recruiting, but it certainly looks like
    they will in retention. They are taking all the appropriate
    steps to get there.
        Second, generally what is the state of the Guard and
    Reserve? I think the idea that they are broken is not correct.
    I think they are performing fabulous service overseas. They are
    getting experience that has not existed since the Vietnam war,
    and these individuals have additional training and additional
    experience and additional capability. I think the only people
    who could conceivably be talking about a draft are people who
    are speaking from pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance. The last
    thing we need is a draft. We just do not. We have got a
    volunteer Army, a Navy, Marines, an Air Force, and they are
    doing a fabulous job, and all we have to do is see that we
    provide the right incentives to attract and retain the people
    we need, and we will continue to have a superb total force.
        General Myers. If I may just tag on a little bit, let me
    talk about retention for just a minute. As the Secretary said,
    retention is exceeding all goals. It is particularly high in
    the Reserve component units that have been mobilized and
    deployed. That tells you something right there. It tells you
    that these folks are proud to serve, they understand the
    mission, they are willing to serve.
        That retention, both in the Active component, particularly
    in the Active component, where it is high as well, that hurts
    our recruiting for the Army National Guard and the Army
    Reserve. It continues to be a problem because they rely on
    those folks that are getting out of the Army to come on to
    Reserve duty, at a time when the active Army is building up to
    30,000 additional end strength. So the recruiting goal this
    year is huge. I think it is 80,000 or in that realm.
        The Marine Corps has missed its recruiting goals in
    January, February, March, but the numbers, particularly in
    March, are very small. We will have to see what additional
    recruiters, what additional incentives do to correct that. I
    hope it turns around.
        I hope the moms and dads and the aunts and the uncles and
    the grandparents in this country understand that this is a
    Nation at war, that the stakes are extremely high. Just
    transport yourself back to the days and weeks following
    September 11, 2001, and reflect on the uncertainty that was in
    all our minds. And another event like that would have serious
    consequences for this country, of course, and it would put at
    stake our way of life. So this is noble business that our
    service men and women are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti,
    around the world, and we need the encouragement from the moms
    and dads and the aunts and uncles and the rest of the folks out
    there to encourage the young men and women of this country to
    sign up for this noble cause, which I think will have a huge
    impact on the outcome of our future and our way of life.

                              STRESS ON THE FORCE

        Secretary Rumsfeld. If I could just add, Senator, there is
    stress on the force. However, we have only activated out of the
    Guard and Reserve about 40 percent. The problem is not that we
    have got too few. The problem is that we are so badly organized
    and have been for decades. We have the wrong skill sets on
    active duty relative to the Guard and Reserve. We need to get
    some of those skill sets out of the Guard and Reserve, onto
    active duty, so we do not have to overuse a small fraction of
    the Guard and Reserve.
        We also have to rebalance within the active force and the
    Guard and Reserve so that we have the best skill sets, more of
    skill sets that are more likely to be needed. That is just
    something that is going forward. We are already doing a great
    deal of that. Pete Schoomaker and Fran Harvey have done a lot
    to do that and it has been very helpful.
        One other thing we are doing, thanks to the National
    Security Personnel System, is we are going to be able to do a
    better job of getting military people out of civilian jobs.
    There may be 200,000, 300,000 military people out of 1.4
    million active duty that are doing jobs that can be done by
    civilians or contractors.
        So there are plenty of ways to reduce stress on the force
    just by good management practices, which we are hard at.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.

                               C-130J ACQUISITION

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I think you have commented
    that there has been additional information received about the
    C-130J since the President's budget was submitted. I am not
    asking you a question, but I just encourage you to give us a
    supplemental if you possibly can, because clearly that
    amendment is going to come on the floor. If it is not covered
    by the budget, we are going to run into problems as far as
    stretching, taking something out to make room for that C-130J
    amount.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I see.

                       PROCUREMENT OF PLANNED NEW SYSTEMS

        Senator Stevens. Let me ask you this. According to the
    plans we have seen, Department of Defense procurement accounts
    will grow about 50 percent from $70 billion to $118 billion
    from this fiscal year to the 2011 timeframe. Even with such
    growth, it looks like the Department's ability to field many
    new systems that are in development or initial development,
    initial procurement--F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, DD(X), the
    Littoral combat ship, the Future Combat System, space
    satellites, a whole series of things, to name them.
        What is going to be the ability to continue on those
    systems with that type of projection of the procurement
    accounts?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, that is a question, Senator, Mr.
    Chairman, that we all wrestle with. It has been one that has
    been around as long as I have been connected with the Defense
    Department, is the so-called bow wave problem. What happens is
    that a lot of things get started and that one then looks out
    and says, well, once you start into development, as opposed to
    research and the early stages, the costs go up. Therefore, you
    have to manage that so that you have an ability to cope with
    whatever needs to be procured in those out-years.
        But for a variety of reasons, some things disappear, some
    things do not work, sometimes needs change and tough choices
    get made. We made tough choices in this budget. Four years ago
    we made tough budget choices when we looked at the bow wave
    problem. You are quite right, I see a bow wave looming now,
    procurement bow wave looming. But on the other hand, I have a
    feeling that it will be like every other time: When the going
    gets tough, people make tough decisions, and that is the way it
    has to be.

                      COST AND IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

        Senator Stevens. Well, in the general economy the
    progression is such that the next generation of technology is
    usually less costly and more efficient than its predecessor. In
    terms of defense procurement, it seems that we continue to grow
    in terms of costs notwithstanding the differences in size, et
    cetera. Is anyone examining into that? Why can we not get more
    technology development that is related to costs?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. A couple of thoughts. Time is money and
    you are quite right, 25 years ago when I was Secretary of
    Defense the length of time to acquire a weapon system was about
    half of what it is today. This is during a period in the last
    25, 30 years where technology has sped up, it has accelerated
    rather than decelerated.
        So something is wrong with the system. We are going to have
    a very serious look at the acquisition process in the
    Quadrennial Defense Review period. Gordon England, who just
    shortly I believe will be confirmed by the Senate and sworn in,
    will be the person who will be deeply involved in that.
        I would say one other thing, however. If a ship costs twice
    as much but it is three times as capable, then one has to say,
    what have we got? Well, we have got something that is more
    valuable at a higher cost, but on a cost-benefit basis it is
    improved as opposed to deteriorated. A smart bomb may cost what
    a precision bomb costs or somewhat less, but you have to drop
    10 dumb bombs to equal one smart bomb, the lethality of one
    smart bomb.
        So apples-to-apples comparisons it seems to me do not quite
    work necessarily. But we do have that problem and it is
    something we are concerned about and it is something we are
    addressing.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        General Myers, we are all worried about retention
    throughout the services. What is your feeling about retention
    as we come through this period we are in now? Do we need
    additional incentives to retention and enlistment?
        General Myers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have some
    pretty good incentives in place and, as I said earlier in
    response to Senator Inouye's question, retention right now is
    very good in all the services. If you look at the statistics,
    you may think the Air Force and the Navy retention is down a
    little bit, but that is programmed because both of those
    forces, the Air Force and the Navy, are shrinking and so they
    do not want to retain as many people.
        But for the Army, the Army active, the Army Reserve
    component, for the Marine Corps and Reserves, retention
    actually is very, very good. So I guess my quick analysis would
    be that we have got the incentives about right.
        I would like to tag on just a little bit more about the
    Reserve component. This is an extremely important part of our
    military capability and our national security. So whatever we
    do, the incentives and so forth, recruiting and retention in
    that component, we have got to do it right because this is a
    great way for the military, the volunteer military, to connect
    to America.
        If you look at a map of America and you look at all the
    Guard and Reserve locations, some of them pretty small
    admittedly, it is a great way to connect to the American
    people, to the employers out there, to family and friends. I
    think it is extremely important and wanted to mention that,
    Senator. This is not a capability, while it is being used
    pretty hard in terms of personnel tempo and operational tempo,
    that we ought to fritter away. We ought to take very good care
    of it.
        In our retention money, I think--and this is the fiscal
    year 2006 budget--we have got almost $1 billion in retention
    items for selected reenlistment bonuses and Reserve component
    health care, educational benefits, enlisted supervisory
    retention pay, critical pay for our special operators, who are
    in big demand now by contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan or
    other places in the world, tuition assistance, almost $900
    million, almost $1 billion in retention items there that will
    help.
        I was in Kabul about 6 or 7 weeks ago. I got to reenlist I
    think at one time 29 people out of an Army National Guard unit
    from Indiana. It was, first, a great privilege--that was the
    day I was there. I think the week before they reenlisted
    something like 200. So once we can get them in the door we are
    keeping them, because they are fulfilled by the mission that
    they are performing.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, do you have any further
    questions?
        Senator Cochran. No further questions.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd, do you have any further
    questions?

                           PAY AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, yes. Thank you.
        In January of this year members of the 201st Field
    Artillery Battalion of the West Virginia National Guard
    contacted me from Iraq with a serious pay problem. Last year
    the Government Accountability Office reported that members of
    the 19th Special Forces Group of the West Virginia National
    Guard came under enemy fire during a trip from Afghanistan to
    Qatar to fix the rampant pay problems in that unit.
        Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand that the accounting system
    used to process pay for reservists in other military services
    do not have the same problems as those for the National Guard.
    Why do these problems persist with the National Guard, and when
    will they be fixed? Why cannot the Department of Defense get
    rid of the accounting systems that do not work for the National
    Guard and simply adopt the computer systems that pay other
    troops fairly and accurately?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. That is exactly the question I ask in
    the Department frequently. As you know as well as I do,
    Senator, the services have their own systems in large measure
    and the Guard and Reserve systems have tended to be different
    from the active duty systems. It was a result of the
    departments growing up as separate entities and their policies
    were different and their approaches were different and their
    systems were different. Some of them used a shoe box with three
    by five cards, some used a shoe box with five by seven cards, I
    guess. The net result was that you have problems.
        Now, we are testing and deploying a forward-compatible pay
    modern integrated pay system, I am told. The end state should
    be a fully integrated pay and personnel system for the
    Department of Defense. I do not know when that end point is.
    Tina, do you?
        Ms. Jonas. We are beginning to deploy that system this
    year. We have some testing issues with it, but we are beginning
    to deploy that.
        Also, the defense integrated military human resource system
    (DIMHRS) program, which I am sure you are aware of, Senator, is
    another key program which will be coming on line in 2006.
        Senator Byrd. Well, does Congress need to step in with
    legislation to fix this problem? How long do you think it will
    take for the Pentagon to address these pay problems once and
    for all?
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, the Congress has been extremely helpful
    with respect to the funding. The DIMHRS program in particular
    has been of great interest to us and the Congress has been very
    generous in that regard. We appreciate your help on that.

                      PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR U.S. TROOPS

        Senator Byrd. Last week the Dallas Morning News carried an
    article about the need for special bulletproof shorts to
    protect the legs of troops while traveling in vehicles in Iraq.
    Although Congress has provided additional funds for bulletproof
    vests for all troops in combat zones, the large number of
    roadside bombs in Iraq are known to cause deadly injuries to
    the legs of soldiers. The article reports that the marines have
    developed a low-cost set of bulletproof leggings, but the Army,
    which has the bulk of the troops in Iraq, is insisting on
    buying its own version of this protective gear which costs
    $9,400 a set, requires special air-conditioning technology, and
    weighs 38 pounds.
        Secretary Rumsfeld, we now know that our troops did not
    have enough bulletproof vests to protect them in the early
    stages of the occupation of Iraq. What are we doing to
    accelerate the schedule to get this type of protective
    equipment out to our troops?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Byrd, we have got some charts
    here. I do not know if we want to bother to put them up. But
    the Department has looked at the requests from the combatant
    commanders as to what they believed were needed by way of
    capabilities and equipment. The job of the combatant commander
    is to look at what he has, ask for what he needs, but in the
    meantime adapt tactics, techniques, and procedures so that he
    can protect his troops. He has the obligation of seeing that
    they can perform their mission and simultaneously that they are
    managed and deployed used in a way that is respectful of the
    value that they are to our society.
        That is what they are doing, and they have had an up-ramp,
    for example, in up-armored Humvees. That is the chart on the
    small arms protective inserts. As you can see, production has
    gone from December 2002, where the production rates were
    40,000, up to production rates at very high levels, up in the
    high 400,000s.
        So they have responded very rapidly and very successfully.
    But the important thing is, for the lives of the troops, that
    between the time that they need something and the time they get
    it--and that changes because the enemy has a brain. The enemy,
    for example with respect to explosive devices, may use one
    frequency and you get a jammer that will stop that, and they
    will change frequencies and they will use a different
    technique. They will use a telephone technique or a garage door
    opener or something.
        So you have to keep adapting continuously, and that shows
    the rate at which the adaptation took place, which is quite
    impressive.
        Senator Byrd. Well, are there additional funds included in
    the supplemental appropriation bills or your regular
    appropriation request to provide for new types of bulletproof
    armor to protect our troops in Iraq? If so, how many sets of
    bulletproof leggings or similar equipment will be provided to
    our troops and when will they receive this equipment?
        General Myers. Senator Byrd, the answer to your question is
    yes, there is funding. There is an effort ongoing in the armed
    services to continually improve the garments they wear. A
    couple of the improvements are to make them better against a
    more serious threat. I do not want to get into the classified
    here, but a more serious threat. And also to make them lighter,
    because obviously the troops in many cases, in most cases, have
    to move around in this gear as well.
        So that is ongoing. There is money in both budgets to help
    do that. They are fielding advance sets as the technology
    becomes available for the current vests. We see some inserts;
    there are some new inserts being developed that are being
    fielded as we speak and they are producing tens of thousands of
    these to go into theater.
        But this is a continuing process and in both budgets there
    is adequate money for this effort. On the leggings, I have not
    heard that. I will personally look into that issue. I had not
    heard that before. I will go look at it.
        Senator Byrd. I thank you.
        I think that chart is about bulletproof vests.
        Senator Stevens. Senator, Senator Shelby is here. Could we
    go to him and we will come back to you again, sir.
        Senator Byrd. I just have one more question and you will be
    through with me.

                     PROTECTING TROOPS FROM ROADSIDE BOMBS

        What specifically needs to be done to protect the legs of
    our troops from roadside bombs?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I will start and Dick can pick it
    up. It seems to me the first and most important thing is what
    is being done, and that is to, to the extent possible, not have
    vehicles out operating without appropriate armor in areas
    outside of protected compounds. So the first thing would be, if
    you had too little armor to protect those vehicles, you would
    not use those vehicles outside of a compound. You would find
    different ways to do it. You use airlift or you would have
    different supply centers, or you would use contractors. There
    are a variety of things that people can do to change their
    tactics and their techniques and their approaches.
        Today we now have a situation where only occasionally would
    there be a U.S. vehicle with U.S. military people in it outside
    of a protected compound that did not have an appropriate level
    of armor.
        Now, the problem with armor, what does it mean, appropriate
    level? We have seen M-1 tanks that have been totally destroyed.
    So armor is not necessarily going to protect somebody. If you
    have a protective insert and body armor and then you get an
    armor-piercing shell, for example, it is going to go through
    it. There is no protection that is perfect and 100 percent and
    all the time everyplace, and that is just the reality of it.
        Senator Byrd. That is a given. We all understand that.
        Thank you.
        General Myers. I would just like to go back to the point,
    because you asked the question what can we do. The part that
    plays the biggest role here, besides the vehicles and the
    personal protection, it is the tactics that the non-
    commissioned officers (NCOs) and the officers devise and their
    reaction to the enemy as they change their tactics.
        So technology can help. You can do things with body armor,
    with armored vehicles. But in the end the biggest thing we can
    do is make sure we have smart, well trained, educated,
    informed, good intelligence, so troops out there that can
    address this threat.
        You asked the question earlier. Let me just fill in the
    blank here a little bit. Since the beginning of fiscal year
    2004 we have spent $5.5 billion on force protection efforts and
    we plan on spending another $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.
    Interestingly enough, in the supplemental there is $2.7 billion
    in force protection efforts, which is just another reason we
    need to get the supplemental as soon as possible. That money
    will not get spent until we get it.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be sure that we
    are providing enough money for this, and I hope that we will
    take every step possible to see that this equipment is provided
    as soon as possible.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.

                      CANCELLATION OF JOINT COMMON MISSILE

        Senator Shelby is recognized.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers, welcome again.
    Everybody has welcomed you, but we appreciate what you are
    doing, the challenge you have, and we are here to do what we
    can to help you in that regard.
        The joint common missile, if I could get into that just a
    minute. The joint common missile was proposed for termination
    in Presidential Budget Decision 753. Eight months, Mr.
    Chairman, into phase one of system design and development, the
    joint common missile, a remarkably healthy, low-risk program,
    on schedule, on budget--think of that, on budget--and
    successfully demonstrating important new capabilities for the
    warfighter.
        Cancelling the joint common missile, I believe, ignores the
    opinion of our top military leaders and deprives our service
    members of a new capability, Mr. Secretary, that they believe
    they need to survive against future threats. Further, the joint
    common missile meets joint service requirements and fills a
    critical capabilities gap that cannot be met by upgrading
    existing weapons systems.
        An example: The joint common missile--I know you both know
    this--has twice the standoff range of the Hellfire, Longbow,
    and Maverick missiles it will replace on Army, Navy, Marine
    aircraft. The accuracy of its trimode seeker would give our Air
    Force--give our forces precision strike lethality to eliminate
    threats that are located near noncombatants.
        That is why the top-ranking officers in all three services
    that have requested the joint common missile--the Army, the
    Navy, and the Marine Corps--all believe that the program must
    be restored.
        What is the justification, other than trying to save some
    short-term money, for proposing eliminating this? I think it is
    a mistake. I think a lot of people think it would be a big
    mistake.
        General Myers. Senator Shelby, the reason that our advice
    to the Secretary was to cancel this particular program was that
    it had been in development for a long period of time and they
    actually have--they have a very ambitious goal, as you know, of
    a seeker that has I think three different technologies in it,
    three different--it is a trimode, three modes of acquiring the
    target. Designing that seeker was certainly high technical
    risk.
        With the inventory of Hellfires and Maverick missiles over
    35,000, we have other ways of doing the job. So it was thought
    this program, let us terminate this program. The requirement
    does not go away. The requirement recycles back down to our
    capabilities requirements system, and we will look at the
    requirement and maybe back off some of the features we want in
    this missile. But it was technically having some difficulties
    and that is why we joined in.
        Senator Shelby. Well, we have been told recently that they
    have been jumping over all the barriers, that everything was
    working well; it was, as I said, under budget and the program
    was moving very fast. This is in the last few days.
        General Myers. The information we had back in December when
    these decisions were made is that there was cost growth,
    schedule creep, and high technical risk in the seeker, and that
    is why it was--I have not reviewed it here----
        Senator Shelby. We would like to further talk with you and
    the Secretary. A lot of us, about this, not just myself, but a
    lot of us believe that it would be a big, big mistake to cancel
    this very promising, very on-budget, on-time joint common
    missile. So we will get back with both of you on this, and that
    will ultimately be a decision of the committee anyway.
        Mr. Chairman, that is all I have today. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I just have a statement I
    would like to make.
        Mr. Secretary, as part of your global posture review you
    will be repositioning forces around the world. In the Asia
    Pacific region you will be moving forces out of Korea and
    possibly moving some marines out of Okinawa. As you know, our
    Asian neighbors, both friends and potential adversaries, are
    very sensitive to changes in the U.S. military posture and
    management structures which govern these forces.
        In that light, I was disturbed to learn that the Navy is
    contemplating changes to its management structure for the
    Pacific fleet separate from your global posture review.
    Considering all the other changes that are underway in the
    region, I would hope that you would not support any changes to
    the operational or administrative control or other management
    functions of the Pacific fleet.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, that is a request, but I
    would state this, that Senator Inouye and I have made a
    practice of traveling to the Pacific now for over 30 years.
    Every time we go to a foreign country we ask the same question
    of a new generation of people involved in the operation. We
    literally have been doing this now for more than 30 years. We
    ask them: What do you think about the presence of the United
    States in the Pacific? Do you think we should reduce it or
    should we increase it?
        I think I cannot remember one single country, including
    China, who ever said anything to us about reducing the forces
    in the Pacific. We are the stabilizing force in the Pacific. So
    I emphasize his question or his statement.

                    COMPLETION OF QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

        Let me ask you one last question. I did promise we would be
    out of here by 12:30. Will the QDR be completed in time for the
    President to take it into account in terms of the 2007 budget
    request?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The QDR of course is an activity that
    is made up of many parts and the answer is that there is no
    question but that we will be informed as we go through the QDR
    process this year in ways that will in fact affect the fiscal
    year 2007 budget. There may very well be pieces of it that we
    would assign for further study and that would not be at a stage
    of completion that would enable us to be informed by the
    outcomes for the 2007, in which case they would very likely
    affect 2008 or later. But a lot of it will be.
        Senator Stevens. Well, again, I think we can remember times
    when the QDR came to us at a time that we already had the
    President's request and it certainly confused the subject of
    defense before this subcommittee. So whatever we can do to get
    the information that pertains to the appropriations request
    before the 2007 budget is received I think would be very
    helpful here, very helpful.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. We will certainly try to do that. You
    are quite right, it is a distraction to send up a budget and
    then be asked by Congress to do a Quadrennial Defense Review
    simultaneously and begin that process and have it reveal things
    that lead you to a different conclusion, and I can well
    understand the layering effect and the distraction it causes
    and we will try to do our best.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Well, again, gentlemen and Ms. Jonas, we thank you very
    much for your testimony. I want to make this statement to you.
    I have made it to you privately and others may not agree with
    me. But I have been privileged to be at meetings, Mr.
    Secretary, that you have had with the Joint Chiefs. I have
    never seen such a relationship between the chiefs and the
    Secretary--open discussion, open critique, and really a give
    and take that was very, very, really I think very helpful and
    very healthy as far as the Department is concerned.
        You obviously, Mr. Secretary, had a previous iteration as
    Secretary, so there has never been a Secretary that had more
    background than you have.
        But I will say this to General Myers. I have been a devotee
    of General Eisenhower since World War II and had the privilege
    of serving under him. As I have told you personally and I would
    like to say publicly now, you come as close to Ike as any
    general I have ever known. So we thank you very much for your
    service and we will look forward to being with you whatever you
    do.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        There will be questions submitted for the record, Mr.
    Secretary. I failed to notify that, but that is common
    practice.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted to Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
        Question. As Chairman of the Senate Depot Caucus, I am a strong
    advocate for maintaining a viable organic depot maintenance capability
    within the Department of Defense. I would like to note that the
    Government Accountability Office has criticized the Defense Department
    for failing to develop a long-term strategic plan for the military
    depots. What is your long-term strategic plan for this dedicated group
    of highly skilled civilian workers who have served you and our
    warfighters so well in peacetime and in war?
        Answer. The Department is engaged in a multiple-year transformation
    of its organizations and doctrine to better focus force structure and
    resources on the national security challenges of the 21st century. An
    integral part of this activity is an ongoing analysis of options for
    transforming DOD's support infrastructure to become more agile and
    responsive. As such, DOD's long-term strategy for providing depot
    maintenance is still evolving, and is guided by the following:
      --Depot maintenance mission. Sustain the operating forces with
            responsive depot-level maintenance, repair, and technical
            support--worldwide.
      --Depot maintenance vision. Agile depot maintenance capabilities that
            are fully integrated into a warfighter-focused sustainment
            enterprise, supporting the full spectrum of operational
            environments.
        Question. It has been reported that the Army will spend $7 billion
    this year to repair and replace equipment returning from Iraq. Depots
    have doubled their workforce and are working around the clock and still
    we hear reports of vehicles lacking significant armor. If the war ended
    today, it is estimated that it would take all of our depots two years,
    at full capacity, to restore all the equipment used in Iraq.
    Considering that some of these vehicles are being run at six times the
    normal rate and that we will be maintaining a significant presence in
    Iraq for some time to come, how will this impact your recommendation on
    the future of our depots to the BRAC Commission?
        Answer. Our BRAC analysis of the organic depot maintenance
    infrastructure was reviewed by a joint group with representatives from
    all Services. Existing and projected workload levels as well as the
    anticipated requirements of the 2025 force structure were considered.
    Military value, coupled with the capacity analysis formed the basis for
    our recommendations.
        Question. You are driving the Defense Department's transformation
    from an industrial age military organization to a 21st century
    information age force focused around the advanced sensors and
    communication systems that are Tobyhanna's expertise. The support of
    these systems matches Tobyhanna's mission perfectly and thus it seems
    natural that Tobyhanna should conduct the depot support for these
    advanced systems.
        What steps have been taken to ensure Tobyhanna has the skills,
    facilities, and latest technology to support the maintenance and
    logistical requirements of the future weapons systems that you so
    strongly advocate?
        Answer. We have taken a number of steps to assure that Tobyhanna
    Army Depot has what it takes to support current and future weapon
    systems in their areas of expertise. Preparing the depot for a new
    weapon system starts early in the acquisition of the that system with
    the Core Depot Analysis, performed in compliance with Title 10, United
    States Code, Section 2464. This analysis determines the depot
    maintenance that must be performed on a weapon system in order to fully
    support the most intense of the war scenarios planned for by the Joint
    Chiefs. The depot that performs that work must then be equipped, the
    employees fully trained, and any necessary facilities prepared to take
    on that maintenance. We have established a process in which the program
    manager works with the depot and its parent command to assure that this
    analysis is complete and that the budgets for the weapon system reflect
    any requirements to purchase equipment and build or upgrade facilities
    to perform the new workload. In the past, this was somewhat difficult
    because the program managers operated independently--not in the same
    chain of command as the depot. We are now establishing Life Cycle
    Management Commands (LCMC) which merge the staffs of the Program
    Executive Officers (for whom the program managers work) and the
    commodity commands (for whom the depots work), giving us seamless
    control over the development of a new weapon system and the
    establishment of its support structure. Tobyhanna's parent LCMC, the
    Communications-Electronics LCMC, was the first ``out-of-the-box'' of
    these centers. In addition to the steps taken with each specific weapon
    system, we have well-established programs in the depot to keep the
    facilities and equipment up-to-date by investing the depot's own
    capital, and to train the workforce for each weapon system supported--
    including training provided at the equipment manufacturer.
        Question. Letterkenny Army Depot is the number one provider of
    tactical missile system support to the Department of Defense. Our
    military arsenal has several hundred thousand aging, deteriorating
    missiles. Demilitarization for these missiles requires disassembly and
    open burning or detonation. Letterkenny is the major storage site for
    tactical missiles on the East Coast and could offer safer,
    environmentally sound technology to recover, recycle, and reuse (R\3\)
    these missile components. However, there is no consolidated program to
    research and operate a large scale, environmentally friendly
    demilitarization program for tactical missiles.
        In May of 2003, I proposed to you the establishment of a Center of
    Technical Excellence (CTX) for missile demilitarization be created at
    Letterkenny Army Depot. There was $1.75 million in the fiscal year 2004
    budget to initiate a pilot program for MLRS recycle/reuse at
    Letterkenny. There was no funding for this initiative in fiscal year
    2005 budget. I am again proposing a CTX for missile demilitarization/
    R\3\ be created at Letterkenny Army Depot. I would like your input on
    this proposal.
        Answer. Letterkenny Munitions Center (LEMC) is currently working
    with Defense Ammunition Center (DAC) and Aviation and Missile Research
    Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) to develop a resource
    recovery and recycling (R\3\) capability for missiles. In fiscal year
    2004, DAC received $1.75 million to start this process. A team was
    formed utilizing personnel from DAC, AMRDEC and LEMC to look at the 21
    different missile systems stored at LEMC, to include MLRS. We are
    leveraging the process at Anniston Defense Munitions Center (ADMC) for
    the TOW missile R\3\. This initial funding is being used to develop
    Technology Trees to determine all of the hazardous components in each
    missile and the technology possibilities for each. It is also being
    used to develop methods and equipment for removing explosives from 4
    different warheads, and to prepare a building at LEMC for the warhead
    equipment. The initial $1.75 million is enough only to start the
    process. We believe the amount required will be at least $10 million
    over the next two years and more as newer technology becomes available.
        Question. Tobyhanna, Letterkenny and the entire organic industrial
    base have responded magnificently in supporting the GWOT, especially
    operations in Iraq. This performance reinforces my belief that we must
    maintain a strong, public sector capability to meet the logistics needs
    of our Warfighters. Do you share that belief, and, if so, how will you
    ensure we retain that capability during BRAC 2005. Specifically, what
    is the Defense Department doing, through BRAC and in other
    transformational planning, to ensure that DOD retains a robust,
    efficient, well-trained and well-equipped public depot maintenance
    structure for the challenges of the present and future?
        Answer. I do share your assessment of the performance our organic
    industrial base. Our BRAC analysis of the organic depot maintenance
    infrastructure was reviewed by a joint group with representatives from
    all Services. Existing and projected workload levels as well as the
    anticipated requirements of the 2025 force structure were considered.
    Military value, coupled with the capacity analysis formed the basis for
    our recommendations. Our recommendations retain the essential
    capabilities of the Departments' organic industrial base.
        Question. How will the Department ensure that the BRAC
    recommendations comply with the national defense mandates of Title 10,
    namely Sections 2464 and 2466, which ensure a ready source of depot
    maintenance?
        Answer. Our depot-related BRAC recommendations are consistent with
    the mandates prescribed by Title 10. Existing workloads, workloads
    necessary to sustain core capabilities and projected requirements
    associated with the 2025 force structure were all considered in our
    analysis and subsequent recommendations.
        Question. Does the Department intend to privatize its depots and
    other maintenance facilities?
        Answer. No. The Department is committed to maintaining depot
    maintenance core capabilities and other related maintenance
    capabilities in Government-owned and operated facilities using
    Government equipment and personnel to assure effective and responsive
    maintenance support for DOD operations.
        Question. The 193rd SOW is one of the largest units in the Air
    National Guard with 1,700 military personnel. The 193rd conducts
    psychological operations and civil affairs broadcast missions and is
    the only Air National Guard unit assigned to Special Operations Command
    and the only unit in the military that conducts this mission. The
    ongoing quest to equip the 193 Special Ops Wing with its last two C-
    130J models continues. The original plan, which began five years ago,
    called for replacing eight older models with eight new J models but the
    USAF keeps postponing the procurement of the last two planes leaving
    the 193rd with the six planes. What is the timeline for delivery of the
    final two C-130Js to the 193rd SOW?
        Answer. The United States Special Operations Command's requirement
    is for a total of six EC-130Js at Harrisburg. To assist the 193rd SOW
    with training requirements, the Air Force will provide one additional
    C-130J (aircraft number seven) in September 2005. The number seven C-
    130J aircraft has already been delivered to the USAF and will be
    transferred from another station to the 193rd SOW.
        Question. I am concerned about the Defense Department's diminishing
    support for Guard counterdrug programs and the related funds it needs.
    The Guard is one of the best vehicles for doing this mission because
    they are in the communities served, and have existing networks with law
    enforcement and other first responders. Our civilian law enforcement
    will be seriously degraded without the Guard counterdrug programs. What
    is your position on the Guard's counterdrug mission and do you have any
    plans to enhance or decrease their role?
        Answer. The NG fulfills a vital role in performing CN operations.
    The Guard is also a major contributor in the on-going War on Terrorism,
    a major priority that has challenged both active and reserve
    components. The Department must carefully balance the ability of the NG
    to support both missions. The Department agrees that the NG can provide
    military unique services in support of CNs operations.
        In 2003, the Department conducted a comprehensive review of its 129
    counterdrug programs to transform DOD's CNs Activities in a post 9/11
    environment. In certain cases, in order to relieve stress on our Title
    10 forces, we increased the levels of effort and type of support (air/
    ground reconnaissance, intelligence analysts, and training for LEAs)
    that we wanted the NG to provide. In cases where the NG was providing
    support that Federal, state and local law enforcement ought to be doing
    on their own (i.e. missions that were not military unique), we
    recommended that those activities be transferred or terminated. For
    example, the U.S. Customs Service stated that they would be able to
    ``effectively discharge'' its cargo/mail inspection duties without
    support from the NG.
        The support that DOD provides should not only complement domestic
    law enforcement, but should also enhance unit readiness.
        Question. Will you please provide the Department of Defense's
    efforts to armor vehicles from all services? I would appreciate current
    statistics on the status of the armoring of vehicles, including
    specific levels of armor, and a timeline detailing the efforts and
    challenges the Department faces in achieving this requirement.
        Answer. The Department is on track to meet CENTCOM (Level I and II)
    armor vehicle requirements by September 2005. Our biggest challenge is
    to keep pacing items for the Level I and II application on schedule.
        As of May 27:
        Level I (Up Armored Humvees)--8,279 completed of 10,577 required;
        Level II (Steel and Ballistic Glass)--22,242 completed of 29,974
            required; and
        Level III (Steel only)--11,378 completed.
        The Marine Corps achieved the Level I/II goal in August 2004. Army
    is on track to achieve this objective by September 2005. Air Force
    vehicles are level I and II, and Navy uses non-tactical vehicles for
    on-base use only.
        Question. The Naval Foundry and Propeller Center at the Norfolk
    Naval Shipyard Detachment-Philadelphia has been in existence for more
    than 85 years and is the Navy's only remaining propeller foundry. Are
    there any plans to privatize this mission?
        Answer. No privatization initiatives are currently planned. Any
    initiative to privatize an organic depot capability could possibly
    require a DOD request for Congressional amendment of 10 U.S.C. 2464
    (core depot capability requirement) or 10 U.S.C. 2466 (50-50 law) to
    prevent non-compliance with Title 10 requirements.
        Question. The Army War College at Carlisle Barracks has a long and
    distinguished history. One of the key aspects of having the College in
    close proximity to Washington, D.C. is the ability for the AWC to draw
    upon the expertise of high ranking leaders to lecture and meet with
    tomorrow's military leaders. Do you agree that the student experience
    of having access to these leaders is an invaluable component of their
    educational experience?
        Answer. The U.S. Army War College (USAWC) must be close enough to
    the National Capital Region (NCR) to both support and influence the
    Army Staff. USAWC support to organizations inside NCR has expanded to
    include: CSA, HQDA, Joint Staff, DOD agencies, Inter-Agency communities
    (DOS, DHS, DOJ). The close proximity to the NCR facilitates access to:
    key national and international policy makers, senior military leaders,
    director level personnel from OSD, JS, ARSTAF, Inter-Agency
    environment, governmental, military, and private think tanks, and the
    Defense intellectual community in the ``Northeast Corridor''. The
    current location supports curriculum IAW Congressional intent and
    JPME--USAWC curriculum focuses on national military strategy. USAWC
    curriculum, therefore, addresses the nexus between national security
    strategy, national military strategy, and theater strategy and
    campaigning which is directly linked to the activities within the
    National Capital Region. Recent increases in U.S. military interaction
    with interagency organizations reinforces the need for proximity to
    National Capital Region. The current location allows for access for
    academic trips to interagency bodies, think tanks, and corporate
    locations, it is a transportation hub that facilitates speakers,
    support, and coordination efforts, it allows for continuity of
    operations and faculty recruitment and retention. Carlisle,
    Pennsylvania promotes Army well-being and quality of life: Carlisle
    area rated second least stressful metropolitan area in America.
    [Sperling's Best Places]; Lower cost of living eases recruitment and
    retention; provides access to the U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center
    (AHEC), the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute (APFRI), the
    Center for Strategic Leadership (CSL), U.S. Army Peacekeeping &
    Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI), the Strategic Studies Institute
    (SSI), personnel for core and elective curricula faculty. USAWC offers
    a comprehensive professional and personal program in an overall
    environment that encourages students to study and confer; it provides a
    ``community of senior leaders'' that fosters free exchange of ideas
    without distractions of other competing activities. Since 1973, 15
    separate studies examined location or command arrangements of the USAWC
    and have supported retaining USAWC at Carlisle Barracks.
        Question. The Naval Support Activity in Philadelphia, and
    specifically the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) and DLA
    missions, play a critical role in supporting our forces. Would
    privatizing or moving these individuals and missions disrupt the flow
    of supplies and harm our warfighters?
        Answer. Ensuring the uninterrupted and seamless flow of supplies
    from America's industrial base to our warfighters is at the heart of
    the Defense Logistics Agency's mission and our unwavering first
    priority.
        The Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), a tenant of the
    Naval Support Activity Philadelphia, plays a vital role in execution of
    this vital mission. DSCP has been a leader in innovative approaches to
    providing outstanding support in an efficient manner.
        As to privatization, or competitive sourcing, under OMB Circular A-
    76, the Agency retains responsibility for the function. The OMB
    Circular A-76 contains guidance to determine whether a function is
    commercial in nature as opposed to inherently governmental. Only those
    that are commercial in nature can be subjected to public-private
    competition. The premise of, and our experience with, A-76 is that
    employee status of the service provider should be transparent to the
    customer. Once it has been decided to subject a function to A-76, the
    procedures of the Circular are implemented to ensure that the selected
    service provider's performance proposal meets the requirements of the
    warfighter as outlined in the performance work statement, demonstrating
    its capability to take on and continue the mission. Past DLA
    performance work statements have included specific requirements
    concerning the transition from Government performance to either
    implementation of the Government Most Efficient Organization (MEO) or
    contractor performance. These requirements are designed to deliver a
    seamless transition of responsibility. The performance work statements
    also have acceptable performance level standards that the selected
    service provider is required to meet throughout the performance period.
        There are no current plans to move DSCP, however if a decision were
    made to move DSCP, the agency would take all necessary measures to
    ensure the transition is executed with the absolute minimum amount of
    impact on the warfighter. As we know from experience, some personnel
    working in the four supply chains currently managed by DSCP would not
    transition and this experience and expertise would be quickly
    reconstituted in the new location.
        Question. Since we are experiencing severe reserve component
    retention and recruiting shortfalls at this time, how important is the
    maintenance of joint service footprints near major population centers
    in recruitment and retention?
        Answer. Maintenance of the Department's footprint is a priority. We
    continue to aggressively model the infrastructure to assure best
    industry practices are applied to our facilities. The current 67 year
    recapitalization rate metric and the 93 percent sustainment rate assure
    the proper funding is in place to maintain this joint Service
    footprint.
        Question. Can you describe the domestic homeland security mission
    requirements of our forces? Are these missions joint in nature? How has
    the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
    coordinated its efforts and funds?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) augments the resources and
    capabilities of domestic civil authorities when their resources have
    been overwhelmed or DOD can provide a unique capability. The Department
    of Defense is in support of civil authorities. Therefore, requirements
    are determined by other Federal agencies and are situation specific.
        The Commanders of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and U.S.
    Pacific Command (USPACOM) are responsible for supporting civil
    authorities once requests have been approved by the Secretary of
    Defense. USNORTHCOM has two tasks forces, Joint Task Force Civil
    Support and Joint Task Force North that provide command and control of
    forces in its area of responsibility. USPACOM utilizes Joint Task Force
    Homeland Defense to provide command and control with their area of
    responsibility.
        Support provided by DOD's U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
    the exception. USACE responds to civil authorities under Public Law and
    the National Response Plan. In accordance with the National Response
    Plan, USACE is the Primary Agency for Emergency Support Function #3,
    Public Works and Engineering. Funding for USACE missions are part of
    their operating budget or may be reimbursable under the Stafford or
    Economy Act depending on the mission requirement.
        A difference of note between Homeland Security and Homeland Defense
    is simply that in a Homeland Defense mission, DOD will be the lead (as
    opposed to Defense Support to Civil Authorities where typically a DHS
    agency will lead).
        Homeland Defense is broken down into domains. The defense domains
    consists of air, land and maritime. Current Homeland Defense mission
    requirements are no different than standard warfighting requirements,
    except that they are oriented more towards protection vice attacking
    for offensive operations. Some current Homeland Defense missions are
    the Air Patrols over the National Capitol Region flown by the Air
    National Guard in support of Operation NOBLE EAGLE and Quick Reaction
    Forces on stand-by for domestic deployment.
        Question. Are these missions joint in nature?
        Answer. All domestic missions are joint in nature. Once a
    requirement has been established, the Department looks for the Service
    or Services that can best provide the resources and/or capabilities to
    effectively and efficiently meet the mission requirements.
        This is true of Homeland Defense missions as well. The DOD will
    lead any Homeland Defense mission, most likely through USNORTHCOM or
    one of its subordinates. JFCOM, as the force provider, will look at
    forces available to best provide the particular capability to satisfy
    mission requirements across the spectrum of defense domains.
        Question. How has the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) coordinated its efforts and funds?
        Answer. The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security are
    involved in continuous coordination to ensure national homeland
    security objectives are met.
        Examples:
      --DOD worked with DHS's U.S. Secret Service to plan for and execute
            security at National Special Security Events (NSSEs) in 2004.
            These NSSEs include the Group of Eight (G8) Summit, Republican
            and Democratic National Conventions, the State of the Union and
            the State Funeral for former President Reagan.
      --DOD provide DHS with unmanned aerial vehicles in support of their
            Arizona Border Control Initiative from June 2004 to January
            2005.
      --From October 2004 to February 2005, DOD provided support to DHS's
            Interagency Security Plan. DOD is still involved in the DHS
            Interagency Security Plan (ISP) 2005, which is a vehicle for
            putting forward DHS initiatives that DOD may be required or
            requested to support. This is a ``living document'' that
            requires continual coordination between DOD and DHS for new and
            ongoing DHS programs.
      --In support of DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency, DOD
            provided personnel, facilities, equipment, food, water, ice and
            medical support to the state of Florida after an unprecedented
            four hurricanes hit the state in August and September.
        DOD normally provides support on a reimbursable basis under the
    Stafford or Economy. One exception was the support provided to DHS's
    Interagency Security Plan. The Secretary of Defense determined that
    support provided to the ISP provided a training benefit to the
    Department and reimbursement was waived.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond

        Question. The (V)3 AESA radar system once it completes development
    within the next year will be the most advanced and capable tactical
    aircraft weapons system in the world. It also makes the F-15C the most
    capable homeland defense platform on the planet which is why I am
    mystified the Air Force elected to not pursue production once the
    system completes the design phase.
        Are you aware that the U.S. Air Force elected to shelve the (V)3
    AESA radar system after almost $68 million invested? And has your staff
    briefed you on the capabilities of this system as it compares to the
    system in the F-22 and the F-16 and how this system will enhance the
    homeland defense capabilities of CONUS based aircraft?
        Answer. Yes, I am aware of Air Force budget decisions, system
    capabilities/comparisons (including the AESA radar) in Homeland Defense
    and other mission areas, and how budget limitations impact force
    capabilities. The Air Force is committed to completing the development
    of the F-15C/D AESA radar program in fiscal year 2006. We plan to
    continue to incorporate AESA technologies on various platforms,
    including the F-15. However, at this time, higher Air Force funding
    priorities preclude AESA procurement for the F-15C/D fleet. The Air
    Force's investment strategy seeks to strike a sound, capabilities-based
    balance between modernizing legacy fighters and fielding F/A-22 and F-
    35 in a timely manner.
        Question. If this country needs more affordable fighters we may
    very well need more F-15's but I cannot get the Pentagon to release $1
    million for an RFP so that Boeing and the Air Force can begin
    negotiations for the purchase of at least two aircraft which will keep
    the production line open through the end of calendar year 2008. The
    action of the Air Force is shortsighted and detrimental to the
    diminishing aircraft industrial base which now consists of just two
    prime manufacturers. It is not in the best interests of the nation or
    the taxpayer to have just one supplier of tactical aircraft for the Air
    Force, which is Lockheed Martin, yet this is exactly what will happen
    if the F-15 line closes.
        Can you provide me an update on the status of the $1 million which
    OSD needs to release in order for an RFP for two aircraft to move
    forward? Failure to do this could result in an additional cost of $20
    million if we have to negotiate a sale late in this legislative cycle.
        Answer. The $1 million for an F-15E Request for Proposal (RFP) is
    released to the F-15 program. We expect to be on contract for the RFP
    effort by May 30, 2005. The remaining portion of the $110 million
    Congressional add for advanced procurement will remain on Air Force
    withhold pending fiscal year 2006 Congressional add to fully fund the
    aircraft procurement.
        Question. As BRAC draws near and as it relates to the Air National
    Guard I am concerned that the process has been designed to validate a
    pre-determined view of the Future Total Force as defined strictly by
    the active Air Force, without the substantive input of the Air National
    Guard. Without the substantive input of the National Guard I question
    the validity of the plan and possibly the BRAC process and its impact
    on the ability of the Air Guard to remain an integral partner in the
    Total Force.
        Can you give me your assessment of the Guard's role in the
    development of the Future Total Force Strategy of the U.S. Air Force?
    By the Guard's role I refer to the input of the TAG's from states with
    significant Air Guard assets.
        Answer. Yes, I am aware of Air Force budget decisions, system
    capabilities/comparisons (including the AESA radar) in Homeland Defense
    and other mission areas, and how budget limitations impact force
    capabilities. The Air Force is committed to completing the development
    of the F-15C/D AESA radar program in fiscal year 2006. We plan to
    continue to incorporate AESA technologies on various platforms,
    including the F-15. However, at this time, higher Air Force funding
    priorities preclude AESA procurement for the F-15C/D fleet. The Air
    Force's investment strategy seeks to strike a sound, capabilities-based
    balance between modernizing legacy fighters and fielding F/A-22 and F-
    35 in a timely manner.
        Question. I understand you are committed to outsourcing military
    functions that can be ably performed by civilian contractors. Are you
    aware that the Army Military Postal Service Agency conducted an
    internal study of the MPSA and published its findings in year 2000
    which recommended that ``all'' or some of the functions of MPSA be
    outsourced? Are you aware that I have recommended to Army that the
    Department move to outsource all MPSA functions? Are you also aware
    that a significant number of Army billets are dedicated solely to
    moving and sorting military mail?
        Answer. The military Postal System operates as an extension of the
    U.S. Postal System under Title 39 U.S.C.; therefore outsourcing of
    military postal functions must be coordinated and agreed to by the
    Postal Service. The Military Postal Service Agency (MPSA), conducted an
    internal study on outsourcing and they have been working with the
    military services to outsource functions within the military postal
    system. As an example, the Air Force has outsourced the majority of
    their main mail terminal in Frankfurt (66 military positions; 3
    civilian positions), and the U.S. Army has outsourced most of their
    mail processing and surface transportation at the Joint Military Mail
    Terminals (JMMT) in both Kuwait and Baghdad and several military post
    offices (MPO), including the Coalition Provisional Authority MPO at the
    Palace Compound in the Green Zone, Baghdad, Iraq. Furthermore, MPSA is
    currently reviewing guidelines for the Services on what functional
    areas within the Military Postal Service may be considered for further
    outsourcing, by the services, versus what is inherently governmental.
    Upon completion of this policy, a meeting with all Services, U.S.
    Postal Service (USPS), and DOD will take place to coordinate a way
    ahead. We are doing this with USPS input to ensure the policy adheres
    to all laws and regulations binding USPS. Currently throughout DOD
    there are approximately 2,274 active duty personnel of which 570 are
    Army personnel providing full-time postal duties.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                             IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

        Question. Do you still stand by your earlier estimates of the
    number of ``trained and equipped'' Iraqi security personnel?
        Answer. I do stand by my earlier estimates of the number of trained
    and equipped Iraqi security personnel. Each week I receive a report
    from the Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq. This report is
    put together by Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus' Headquarters and is
    reviewed by General Casey. This number reflects the number of Iraqi
    forces who have been trained and equipped to the standards previously
    provided to Congress. However, ``trained and equipped'' does not tell
    you the capability of Iraqi security personnel. We have recently begun
    to measure this capability. The new process for measuring Iraqi
    Security Forces capability looks at six areas of readiness: personnel,
    command and control, training, sustainment, equipping and leadership.
    Using these measurements, units are assessed on their ability to
    execute counterinsurgency operations and are given a readiness rating
    of Level 1-4. A Level 1 unit is fully capable of planning, executing
    and sustaining independent counterinsurgency operations.
        Question. To what extent are the Pentagon's estimates of the Iraqi
    Ministry of Interior forces reliable?
        Answer. The estimates reflect the number of police who have been
    trained and equipped minus estimated losses based on reports from
    Multi-National Corps-Iraq. They are the best estimates available, and
    Multi-National Forces-Iraq is constantly reviewing means to improve
    upon them.
        Question. What specifically do you attribute to the difficulty of
    training an adequately-sized Iraqi Security Force--funding, capability,
    equipment, or some other factor?
        Answer. Training the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) with the right
    balance of capabilities presents many challenges, and steps are being
    taken to ensure the ISF has the means to maintain domestic order and
    deny a safe haven to terrorists. Some of the challenges in developing a
    capable Iraqi Security Force are: working with a different culture;
    overcoming poor leadership habits and corruption developed under the
    former regime; working within a cash-based economy; developing capable
    bases that have largely been destroyed; developing command, control and
    communication systems where none existed; and training security forces
    to conduct counterinsurgency operations when they had never performed
    them.
        Question. How many Iraqi security personnel do you estimate will be
    recruited, equipped, and trained by the $5.7 billion that was allocated
    for this purpose in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental bill?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2005 supplemental will fund the most
    critical institutional training, equipment and infrastructure
    requirements for about 270,000 Iraqi Security Forces.
        Question. You also state in the funding justification language for
    the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental, and I quote: ``The Iraqi Interim and
    Transitional Governments, with Coalition assistance, have fielded over
    90 battalions in order to provide security within Iraq . . . All but
    one of these 90 battalions, however, are lightly equipped and armed,
    and have very limited mobility and sustainment capabilities.'' (page
    25)
        Does this statement remain true today?
        Answer. At the time of that statement, only one mechanized
    battalion was operational. Currently there are two mechanized
    battalions that are capable of planning and executing counterinsurgency
    operations in conjunction with Coalition units. The vast majority of
    Iraqi security forces are infantry and police-type units, which we
    consider to be ``light'' forces.
        Question. Would you please tell the Committee how many Iraqi
    battalions today are fully-equipped, armed, and capable of successfully
    carrying out their mission in Iraq?
        Answer. There are 102 battalion level combat units in the Iraqi
    Ministry of Interior and Defense conducting operations at the company
    though battalion level. 81 of these battalions are in the Ministry of
    Defense and 21 battalions are in the Ministry of Interior. These forces
    are capable of conducting security operations--in some cases with
    Coalition assistance and in some cases without assistance.

                    APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF UP-ARMORED HUMVEES

        Question. Since the beginning of this year, it is my understanding
    that the U.S. Central Command has increased its estimate of the number
    of up-armored Humvees needed in Iraq and Afghanistan at least 5
    separate times. And earlier this month, the Army stated that it was 855
    vehicles short of procuring the 8,105 factory-armored Humvees needed
    for its missions in the Middle East. In addition, it has come to my
    attention that several days ago the U.S. Central Command again
    increased its estimate of required Humvees to 10,079. I remember you
    came before this Committee in February and told us that there were no
    longer any military vehicles operating in Iraq (outside of a protected
    zone) that lacked ``an appropriate level of armor?
        Can you explain why the Pentagon has so often underestimated the
    need for up-armored Humvees since the beginning of this war?
        Answer. The Pentagon has not under estimated the need for Up-
    Armored Humvees. The increase in Up-Armored Humvee requirements
    corresponds with the results of a constant mission analysis conducted
    by the Operational Commander and his staff. This analysis takes into
    account the changing tactics, techniques, and procedures of the Iraqi
    insurgents, and the requirement for U.S. forces to operate outside of
    secure operating bases. As the enemy's tactics, techniques, and
    procedures change so will the requirements.
        Question. Are you confident that we currently have an appropriate
    number of up-armored Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, when do
    you estimate that we will have the necessary number of vehicles?
        Answer. The Combatant Commander, CENTCOM determining the need for
    UAH through the use of an Operational Need Statement (ONS) to request
    what he needs to conduct military operations. Since the first ONS for
    235 UAH in May 2003, the validated theater requirement has grown to the
    current requirement of 10,079. Almost without exception, each jump in
    the requirement was preceded by an operational event in theater whereby
    the insurgency began employing a different method of attack against the
    coalition forces. The Army will continue producing UAH at the maximum
    monthly production rate of 550 until the requirement of 10,079 is
    satisfied from production in July 2005 with in-theater delivery by
    September 2005.
        Question. A GAO report released this month suggests that the
    Pentagon ``failed to use the maximum available production capacity'' to
    produce factory-armored Humvees even as the requirements increased.
        How many factory-armored Humvees are currently being produced each
    month?
        Answer. O'Gara-Hess (OHEAC) is currently producing at their maximum
    production rate of 550 vehicles per month.
        Question. Can you say confidently that all 5 Army depots are now
    operating at their ``maximum'' capacity in regards to up-armoring and
    repairing Humvees?
        Answer. The Army Depots have completed theater validated production
    requirements for HMMWV's add-on armor kits. The Validated Theater
    requirement is 13,872 kits of which the Army has produced 14,220 kits.
        Question. And is it true that only one small factory in Ohio is
    producing the armor to fortify Humvees?
        Answer. No; armor for HMMWVs has been produced in four
    configurations. O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armor Company is the armor
    producer for the M1114 Up-armored HMMWV. Ground System Industrial
    Enterprise (GSIE) with seven Army Depots have produced the Armor
    Survivability Kit (ASK) Add-on Armor, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt with
    Simula produced the Enhanced HARDkit Add-on Armor and ArmorWorks is the
    producer of the HMMWV troop carrier.

                          RESERVE AND GUARD RETENTION

        Question. It has been reported that the Army National Guard missed
    its recruiting goal by 27 percent in the first half of this fiscal
    year, while the Army Reserve came up 10 percent short.
        Can you comment on the current recruitment and retention rates of
    the Army Guard and Reserve?
        Answer. LTG Schultz: The Army National Guard is at 77 percent of
    its accession mission to date for fiscal year 2005 (26181/34167).
    However, it has accomplished its retention mission at a rate of 103
    percent (18796/18231). Overall, the Army National Guard is at 98
    percent of its authorized strength. The accession mission is developed
    based partly on attrition rates from previous years. With its improved
    retention this fiscal year, the Army National Guard can achieve its
    endstrength requirements while still falling short of its accessions
    mission.
        Question. Has raising the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 39 led
    to an increase in the number of recruits?
        Answer. LTG Schultz: The ARNG has enlisted 101 Non Prior Service
    Soldiers who were 35-39 years old. This is relatively a small amount of
    accessions and there are no current marketing initiatives to penetrate
    this population. The Army National Guard anticipates the annual
    enlistments to be around the 600 mark.
        Question. What about pay incentives? Do you think increasing pay
    and benefits for the Guard and Reserve would be a helpful tool to
    recruiting?
        Answer. LTG Schultz: The Army National Guard is not unlike any
    other business in the open market, the higher the pay and incentives,
    the more recruits you have applying for the job regardless of the risk.
    The current economy has fewer eligible applicants being sought after by
    a larger and larger pool of businesses and governmental entities. It
    goes without saying, improving pay and incentives would show an
    increase in recruits.

                  STRESS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY AND RESERVE FORCE

        Question. Since September 2001, over a million active and reserve
    forces have been deployed. Of that, one-third have been deployed twice.
    The Pentagon's current policy sets a standard of one-year deployed for
    every three years of duty for active-duty forces and one-year in every
    5 to 6 years for reserve forces. Deployment data shows that over one-
    third of the 457,000 Army active duty and Army National Guard and Army
    Reserve forces have been deployed more than once since September 2001.
    That suggests that DOD's current policy standards are not being met for
    a large share of Army forces.
        Assuming current force levels continue in fiscal year 2005 and
    fiscal year 2006, how many and what share of Army active duty and
    reserve forces will have been deployed: More than once? More than
    twice? Since 9/11?
        Answer. The number of Active and Reserve Soldiers who will be
    deployed more than once by the end of fiscal year 2006 is difficult to
    determine accurately at this early date. If today's statistics hold
    true throughout the next 18 months an increasingly larger number of
    Active Soldiers will deploy for a second time and third time while the
    Reserve Forces will continue to contribute but at a much lower rate due
    to two mitigating policies, the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
    limiting Partial Mobilization service to 24 cumulative months and the
    Army's 12 months ``boots on the ground'' policy. Combined these two
    policies will temper the reuse of our Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers.
        The Army estimates that approximately 185,500 Soldiers currently
    assigned to the Active Component will have or are currently deployed,
    whereas 258,000 currently assigned RC Soldiers have or are currently
    mobilized with the majority serving overseas and many less in support
    of an operation stateside but away from their homes. I emphasize that
    the RC figures are the total number mobilized of which the majority are
    or have deployed overseas. In order for an RC Soldier to be deployed to
    a combat zone more than once they must currently be a volunteer.
        Projecting current required deployment force levels to the end of
    fiscal year 2006 implies the Active Army number will grow to
    approximately 206,000 who have deployed for at least one six month or
    longer period. Of these, 18,700 (3.8 percent) will have deployed twice
    and 370 (less than .1 percent of AC assigned strength) will have
    deployed three times.
        The number of Reserve of the Army Personnel who have been mobilized
    more than once is approximately 46,000 (8.7 percent), mobilized more
    than twice is approximately 7,500 (1.4 percent) of the present
    population. The vast majority of these Soldiers volunteered to be
    remobilized. By the end of fiscal year 2006, the percentage should not
    be significantly changed based upon the policies already cited. These
    projections are only estimates.
        Question. Assuming, conservatively, that current force levels
    continue, could DOD meet its stated standards for active and reserve
    forces in: fiscal year 2005? fiscal year 2006? fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. As the Army begins its third major rotation of forces to
    Iraq and its seventh major rotation of forces to Afghanistan, we remain
    committed to meeting CENTCOM requirements for trained and ready forces.
    The Army will continue to adapt to ensure our nation's success in what
    will be a continued War on Terrorism. We are pursuing polices and
    initiatives focused on providing the active duty force necessary to
    meet global force commitments and to increase the dwell times for
    deploying units in order to attain the DOD standard. The centerpiece of
    these efforts has been the transformation of the current Active
    Component (AC) and RC force to a 21st century modular force, and the
    expansion of the AC combat force structure from 33 brigades to 43
    brigades. These efforts create a larger force of more capable brigade
    combat teams, relieving some of the stress of current force
    requirements. Another initiative aimed at increasing dwell time is the
    Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) readiness model. ARFORGEN establishes
    a three year cycle for AC units, which includes the availability for
    one deployment in three years and a six year cycle for RC units, which
    includes availability for one year of deployment in six years. The
    initial application of ARFORGEN will focus on the BCT. Application of
    ARFORGEN for echelons above brigade CS/CSS units is more difficult and
    will be dealt with in subsequent applications of ARFORGEN as force
    requirements permit. Additional efforts to increase dwell include
    contracting logistics requirements, utilizing ``in lieu of''
    substitutions for force requirements, and accelerated rebalancing of AC
    and RC forces to replace low demand units with high demand units (i.e.
    changing RC field artillery units to military police units). The
    projected result of these initiatives is an increase in average dwell
    time for active component forces from the OIF/OEF 04-06 to OIF/OEF 05-
    07, OIF /OEF 06-08, and OIF 07-09.
        Sustaining the Army's current level of commitment presents several
    challenges. Successive year-long combat rotations have had an impact on
    overall Army readiness. Moreover supplying the necessary Combat Support
    and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) capabilities to our coalition
    forces has become increasingly difficult with each rotation, causing
    the Army to adopt new and innovative sourcing solutions. In order to
    maintain current force levels the Army has had to increase the
    operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for active duty forces deploying most units
    with dwell time less than the two year DOD goal. These challenges,
    while significant, are manageable, but the DOD stated standards will
    not be achieved for a portion of the Force. Today the Army has been
    able to achieve an average dwell time peak of 19 months between regular
    Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) rotations. The length of Soldier's dwell
    time will decrease as the Army loses access to Reserve Component (RC)
    BCTs as well as other High Demand/Low Density RC formations:
        As a rule RC utilization continues to meet the DOD stated standard,
    with involuntary redeployment of personnel to a contingency operation
    being the exception. Maintaining the current level of force commitments
    will require the remobilization of selected RC units, however every
    effort will be made to fill these units with personnel who have not
    deployed to a contingency operation or personnel who volunteer for
    redeployment to a contingency operation. Maintaining the current force
    levels will require the continued deployment of forces at less than the
    two year DOD goal. However, the Army is taking steps to increase active
    duty unit dwell time.
        Iraqi Security Forces continue to improve and accept a growing
    share of the security responsibilities. As Iraqi Security Forces
    achieve the ability to conduct independent operations, the requirements
    for U.S. forces will begin to decrease. Potential force reductions
    would result in greater average dwell times for the OIF/OEF 07-09
    rotation.
        While the OPTEMPO for Army units has been high for the last three
    years, a combination of Army initiatives and potential decreases in
    force requirements should reduce the stress on the force. The Army
    remains committed to achieving the DOD standard of one deployment in
    three years for AC forces and one deployment in six years for RC forces
    and will take all measures possible towards that goal.

                               ARMY RESTRUCTURING

        Question. The Army requested $4.6 billion in the fiscal year 2005
    Supplemental for ``modularity,'' or force restructuring at the brigade-
    level. The Army first announced this modularity initiative in August
    2003 with a plan to create between 43 to 48 units of action by 2007.
        While the $4.6 billion for the Army's modularity initiative may be
    necessary, why was it not included in the President's fiscal year 2006
    base budget?
        Answer. The Army developed estimates for the Army Modular force
    after reviewing the specific equipment and facility needs to those
    units planned for conversion. The fiscal year 2005 supplemental
    supports only those equipment requirements for these near term
    deployers, both active and Reserve Component. The accelerated process
    of the supplemental when compared to the normal budget process--a
    matter of months compared to almost two years--permits us to more
    precisely determine our requirements in this very dynamic environment.
    We have programmed for modularity requirements beginning in fiscal year
    2007 when we will have more certainty of our deployment schedules and
    associated equipment and facility needs.
        Question. I would also be very interested to know where you plan to
    request modularity funding next year: In the fiscal year 2007 base
    budget or in another supplemental?
        Answer. We have realigned a portion of the fiscal year 2006 PB to
    support Army Modular Forces, and expect to need an additional $5
    billion in an fiscal year 2006 supplemental for investment items and $3
    billion for fully-burdened personnel costs. From fiscal year 2007
    through fiscal year 2011, the Army base program will fund the remaining
    requirements for the Army Modular Force, not to include personnel
    costs. Upon return from operations in Iraq, the Army anticipates it
    will need $4 billion per year from the end of the conflict plus two
    years to fully reset its equipment to mission capable standards.
        Question. On a different note, as you move to reorganize the Army
    into faster, smaller, and more mobile combat units, concerns have been
    raised that this would lead to a loss of ``armor and firepower'' and
    the ability to wage more conventional warfare. In addition, I
    understand that this restructuring is based on the assumption that
    there is no need to permanently increase troop endstrength.
        How will the transition from a Division-centric force to a Brigade-
    centric force affect our ability to engage in not only non-
    conventional, but conventional warfare?
        Answer. The Army Modular Force Brigade Combat Team (BCT) is full-
    spectrum capable in major combat operations, stability and support
    operations. The modular BCT has equal and in many ways greater
    capability to engage in conventional and unconventional warfare
    compared to a division-based brigade. Fundamentally, the modular BCT is
    a more informed, agile, cohesive, combined-arms team. The modular heavy
    BCT retains the M1A2 Abrams tank, the M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle,
    and the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer. Instead of 3 battalions
    of 3 companies in the non-standardized baseline, every BCT has 2
    battalion task forces of 5 companies (2 armor, 2 infantry, 1 engineer).
    Instead of 3 batteries of 6 field artillery systems, there are 2
    batteries of 8 guns. This is a comparable level of armor, infantry and
    firepower, but the BCT has significantly increased intelligence,
    surveillance, reconnaissance and communication capabilities that were
    formerly found at division-level. The modular BCT has an entire Armed
    Recon Squadron,18 more UAVs, a company of Military Intelligence
    analysts, and a Signal company with greater network connectivity and
    space-based access to Joint intelligence. With improved network-enabled
    battle command and Future Combat Systems spiral acceleration, leaders
    have greater quality of information, ability to collaborate and
    coordinate, improved situational understanding, and greater agility to
    seize opportunities on the battlefield to fight on the most favorable
    terms. A RAND study has shown these network-centric capabilities in the
    modular Stryker BCT increased mission effectiveness and reduced
    casualties by a factor of 10 during urban operations at the Joint
    Readiness Training Center. Adding capability for unconventional
    warfare, the BCT has more human intelligence and robust command posts,
    with planning expertise in civil affairs, psychological, public affairs
    and information operations. Thus the modular BCT improves capability
    for unconventional warfare while retaining conventional overmatch
    against any current threat. This force structure also offers the
    optimum capability balance for the new strategic context of continuous
    full-spectrum operations in persistent conflict. 43-48 active component
    BCTs and assured, predictable access to 34 reserve component BCTs
    provides the rotational base needed to meet Army strategic
    requirements, including the Global War on Terror, and preserve the
    quality of the All Volunteer Force. The Army will address the question
    of end-strength within the on-going QDR and the Army Campaign Plan.
        Question. You have also suggested that you plan to re-train about
    100,000 soldiers, or 10 percent of the current force, in order to
    better position the Army for the combat challenges it will face today
    and in the future.
        While I agree that it makes sense at some level to re-train
    soldiers based on our current needs, would it not, in the long-term, be
    more cost-efficient and practical to simply increase troop endstrength,
    rather than attempt to solve the shortages by potentially creating new
    ones?
        Answer. The Army had cold war capabilities that were no longer
    relevant for the current strategic environment. Our rebalancing
    adjusted this existing force structure to provide a more ready force
    properly balanced and postured as a full joint war fighting partner.
    Rebalancing as part of the Transformation process will posture the Army
    to better fight the Global War on Terrorism. Additionally, the
    temporary 30,000 end strength increase allows the Army to continue to
    transform while sustaining its current level of operational
    commitments. A permanent increase in troop end strength is based on
    many factors including the defense strategy, Combatant Commander Force
    requirements and other factors.

                    ABUSE OF IRAQI FEMALE PRISONERS IN IRAQ

        Question. Last time you appeared before us in February, Senator
    Leahy and I both asked you a question about whether you were aware of
    any mistreatment of female Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces in Iraq--
    allegations that included assault and rape. At the time you promised to
    ``get back to us and get the answer for the record.''
        I have yet to receive a response to this question so I will ask you
    again--Secretary Rumsfeld, are you aware of any mistreatment of Iraqi
    women prisoners, including allegations of sexual abuse?
        Answer. I transmitted the following to Congress on April 27, 2005
    in response to questions for the record from my appearance before the
    Senate Appropriations Committee on February 16, 2005.
        The Department of Defense investigates all allegations of abuse of
    detainees. There have been four investigations into allegations of
    sexual misconduct involving female detainees. The investigations are
    described below:
        (1) The Taguba Report included an incident where 3 soldiers took a
    female detainee to another area of Abu Ghraib. There was an allegation
    of sexual assault in which the detainee's blouse was removed and one
    soldier apparently kissed the detainee. An investigation concerning
    this incident was opened. The soldiers involved were assigned to the
    519th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC. Initially, the
    soldiers were charged with sexual assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of
    a prisoner and communicating a threat (for allegedly telling a female
    detainee that she would be left in the cell with a naked male
    detainee). The investigation was closed as a result of insufficient
    evidence to prove or disprove the allegations. However, the unit
    commander determined that the soldiers violated a unit policy that
    prohibits male soldiers from interviewing female detainees. The
    soldiers received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the
    Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violation of a lawful
    regulation or order, (Article 92, UCMJ). A Sergeant was reduced from
    the grade of E-5 to the grade of Specialist, E-4 and forfeited $500 of
    his pay and allowances for one month; a Specialist, was reduced from
    the grade of E-4 to the grade of Private First Class, E-3 (the
    reduction was suspended), and also forfeited $750 of his pay and
    allowances for one month; and a second Specialist was reduced from the
    grade of E-4 to the grade of Private First Class, E-3 and forfeited
    $500 of his pay and allowances for one month.
        (2) The Taguba Report includes a statement that a male MP Guard had
    sex with a female detainee. The witness statement references a video of
    Private Graner having sex with a female in the prison. After an
    extensive investigation into the allegations of abuse by Private Graner
    and others at the Abu Ghraib prison, there has been no evidence
    uncovered that establishes that Private Graner had sexual intercourse
    with female detainees.
        An allegation was substantiated against Private Graner, however,
    for photographing a female detainee exposing her breasts. On January
    10, 2005, Private Graner was convicted by a ten-member enlisted panel
    at a General Court-martial for numerous offenses stemming from his
    abuse of detainees while stationed as a guard at Abu Ghraib prison.
    Included in the charges was a multi-specification charge of Dereliction
    of Duty which included one specification alleging that ``[t]he accused
    photographed a female detainee exposing her breasts.'' Private Graner
    was found guilty of this specification. He was sentenced on all the
    charges to which he was found guilty and sentenced to reduction from
    the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-6, to the lowest enlisted grade,
    Private, E-1, to total forfeitures of pay and allowances, to
    confinement for 10 years, and to a Dishonorable Discharge.
        (3) A 75-year old Iraqi female alleged she was captured and
    detained for 10 days and claimed that she was robbed, sodomized,
    indecently assaulted and deprived of food and water at a remote
    location. The woman described her captors as American Coalition Forces
    but could not provide any further descriptions of the personnel
    allegedly involved. The investigation was initially closed for
    insufficient evidence, but has since been re-opened for further
    investigation after the identification of additional leads.
        (4) A female detainee alleged she was raped and knifed in the back
    by unknown U.S. personnel at the Baghdad Central Confinement Facility.
    These allegations were reported via a newspaper article in the Los
    Angeles Times. Following the publication of the article, CID opened an
    investigation and attempted to locate the alleged victim and her
    attorney. CID coordinated with the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and made
    numerous attempts to locate witnesses for information. After extensive
    efforts, CID closed the investigation as a result of insufficient
    evidence either to identify potential suspects or to prove or disprove
    the allegations.

                         WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ

        Question. General George Casey stated on CNN's ``Late Edition'' in
    March that there would likely be ``very substantial reductions in the
    size of our forces'' in Iraq by March 2006.
        Does the Pentagon have a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq?
        Answer. The President has stated on numerous occasions that
    Coalition forces will remain in Iraq until the mission of stabilizing
    the country is complete. Articulating a detailed plan for withdrawal
    before we have completed this mission would undermine confidence in our
    commitment to defeating the terrorists in Iraq. To create such doubts
    about American resolve would only lead to increased attacks against
    U.S. forces in Iraq, and likely to more attacks against Americans
    throughout the world. It is far more important, therefore, to focus on
    the objectives we are trying to achieve rather than set arbitrary
    deadlines.
        Question. Do you agree with General Casey's assessment that there
    will be a ``substantial reduction'' of our forces in Iraq within a
    year?
        Answer. General Casey's full statement was: ``By this time next
    year . . . Assuming that the political process continues to go
    positively, and the Sunni are included in the political process, and
    the Iraqi army continues to progress and develop as we think it will,
    we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the
    size of our forces.''
        I agree that if at this time next year the political process and
    security situation in Iraq met the standards of success as defined by
    the President, we will be able to make some reduction in the size of
    our forces in Iraq. However, it is far more important that we focus on
    achieving our objectives of helping the Iraqi people to create a stable
    and secure Iraq than on setting arbitrary deadlines.

                             F/A-22 RAPTOR PROGRAM

        Question. The Pentagon's budget request would prematurely terminate
    the procurement program for the F/A-22 Raptor by fiscal year 2008,
    ending with the production of 179 planes rather than the original
    production request of up to 750 aircraft through fiscal year 2011.
        Can you tell me if the Pentagon still plans to end the F/A-22
    program early? If so, why?
        Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2006 allocates
    funding for production of F/A-22 aircraft through fiscal year 2008. In
    making this recommendation to the President, senior members of the
    Department of Defense considered the full range of investments underway
    in air dominance (F/A-22, F-35, Joint Unmanned Combat Air System, F/A-
    18 E/F/G, and the networks to link them). The Secretary decided to
    continue funding production of the F/A-22 through fiscal year 2008 to
    provide the nation a significant number of F/A-22s in the overall mix
    of systems. The Secretary also decided to continue the F/A-22
    modernization effort to provide the airplanes with a broad range of
    attack capabilities.
        The Secretary has committed to a discussion of joint air dominance
    capabilities in the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review. All
    systems' contributions to joint air dominance will be assessed to
    determine how the investment plan balances
    near-, mid-, and far-term risks.
        Question. How much money does the Pentagon expect to save by ending
    procurement of the F/A-22 by fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2006 cut the F/A-22
    program by $10.5 billion. These savings will be partially offset by the
    cost to extend the service life of existing aircraft, or procure new
    aircraft to provide the required capability. There may also be some
    cost impacts on other programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter,
    because Lockheed-Martin's facilities share overhead rates.
        Question. Is this number based on an estimated cost of $250 million
    per aircraft?
        Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2006 reduced the F/
    A-22 program by $10.5 billion and the procurement quantity by 96
    aircraft. The 96 aircraft reduction is based on an average Unit Flyaway
    Cost per aircraft of $109 million.

                                 C-130J PROGRAM

        Question. I have been informed that the Pentagon estimates that
    ending this program early will save $3.5 billion. Nevertheless, it is
    my understanding that it will cost in the region of $1 billion simply
    to cancel the contract.
        Does the Pentagon still plan on completing the C-130J program in
    fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. No. As I notified the congressional defense committees, we
    have carefully reviewed our decision to terminate the C-130J program,
    and we believe it is in the best interests of the Department to
    complete the multi-year contract.
        Question. Considering that 30 older C-130s were recently grounded
    by the Air Force due to cracks on the exterior of the planes, do you
    anticipate that the Air Force and Navy will have the necessary number
    of cargo aircraft to fulfill their current and future missions?
        Answer. Though operations in the global war on terror have added
    stress to our mobility resources, we currently have enough C-130
    aircraft to accomplish our ongoing intra-theater airlift mission. We
    are assessing the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS), which is providing
    insights into the right mix of airlift, sealift, air refueling, and
    pre-positioning assets to meet future challenges. In a follow-on study
    to MCS, we are examining future force requirements for intra-theater
    airlift within the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review. We expect
    these analyses to provide a foundation for future C-130 fleet
    recapitalization decisions.

                              GLOBAL HAWK PROGRAM

        Question. I'd like to ask a question about the Global Hawk, which
    is based at Beale Air Force Base in California. This aircraft flies
    very high, very fast, for long periods of time with large powerful
    sensors--I understand that a single Global Hawk could have surveyed the
    entire area devastated by the recent Tsunami in Asia on a single
    mission. It has also performed to rave reviews as part of surveillance
    operations in Iraq. I understand that one Global Hawk identified 55
    percent of time-sensitive air defense targets destroyed during
    Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Is the Global Hawk something the Combatant Commanders have been
    requesting for operations?
        Answer. Yes. Since September 11, 2001, we have received three
    separate Global Hawk Request For Forces from the Commander, United
    States Central Command. Additionally, the regional Combatant Commanders
    have highlighted a collective requirement for a persistent platform
    with robust Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capabilities
    through their Integrated Priority Lists. Global Hawk is the only system
    currently programmed that will be capable of fulfilling this
    requirement.
        Question. Has the Pentagon looked at accelerating delivery of this
    vital capability?
        Answer. The Department of Defense is incrementally fielding
    capability as soon as it becomes available. In addition, we are
    examining ways to accelerate our testing approach. Finally, and most
    importantly, we are on track to deploy our first two production
    aircraft later this summer to augment or replace our deployed Advanced
    Concept Technology Demonstration aircraft currently supporting the
    Global War on Terrorism.

                        ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

        Question. At the March 2, 2005 House Armed Services Strategic
    Forces Subcommittee, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked Ambassador
    Linton Brooks of the National Nuclear Security Administration the
    following question: ``I just want to know is there any way a [Robust
    Nuclear Earth Penetrator] of any size that we would drop will not
    produce a huge amount of radioactive debris?
        Answer. The amount of radioactive debris is commensurate with the
    yield of the weapon.
        Question. Ambassador Brooks replied: ``No, there is not.'' When
    Congresswoman Tauscher asked him how deep he thought a bunker buster
    could go he answered: ``. . . a couple of tens of meters maybe. I mean
    certainly--I really must apologize for my lack of precision if we in
    the administration have suggested that it was possible to have a bomb
    that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't believe that--I
    don't believe the laws of physics will ever let that be true.''
        Do you agree? If so, why should we move forward with the
    development of a nuclear bunker buster that inevitably will spew
    millions of cubic feet of radioactive debris in the atmosphere?
        Answer. I agree that a nuclear penetrator will never attain a depth
    to prevent all fallout. The recent National Academy of Sciences report
    on Earth Penetrating Weapons (EPWs) is entirely consistent with our
    long understanding of the capabilities and limitations of such a
    weapon. The downward shock multiplying effect of shallow penetration
    led us to field the B61-11 EPW in the 1990's and various precision
    conventional munitions in the last decade to address a growing threat
    from sanctuaries provided by a wide range of Hard and Deeply Buried
    Targets (HBDTs).
        At the present time, the nuclear weapon stockpile consists of
    weapons that were designed for Cold War missions. In order to place at
    risk most of the known HDBTs that are beyond our conventional earth
    penetration capability, our only option is a surface burst nuclear
    weapon 10 to 50 times more powerful than an equally effective nuclear
    earth penetrator, depending on the structural character of the target.
    Accordingly, the fallout is 10 to 50 times less for the smaller RNEP
    weapon.
        A serious shortfall in capability against HDBTs remains today. The
    completion of the RNEP study is necessary if we are to address all
    plausible capabilities to satisfy validated requirements and meet the
    President's direction for options to halt confidently a WMD attack on
    U.S. territory, troops, Allies, and friends, launched or supported from
    HDBT sanctuaries.

                            NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

        Question. President Bush has requested $9 billion for missile
    defense for fiscal year 2006. The United States has spent $92 million
    on missile defense since 1983 and the Administration anticipates
    spending an additional $58 billion over the next six years. Some
    experts put the overall price tag at well over $150 million.
        Given the number of national defense priorities we face--providing
    for non-proliferation activities, deterrence, homeland security--how do
    you justify spending so much on missile defense?
        Answer. The threat to the United States, its deployed forces
    overseas, and its friends and allies from ballistic missile attack is a
    real one. Combined with the proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction, this threat must be addressed, and our ballistic missile
    defense program is designed to do so.
        Since 1984, I understand that we've spent a little more than 1
    percent of our total Defense budget on ballistic missile defense. When
    one considers that we now have an initial capability to destroy
    incoming long-range missiles where before we had absolutely none, the
    money we have invested to develop this capability has been well spent.
    It is also worth noting that the Government Accountability Office has
    estimated that the damage from the attacks of September 11, 2001 cost
    the nation $83 billion. An attack by even a single ballistic missile
    equipped with weapons of mass destruction could no doubt cost the
    nation far more than that.
        Additionally, Department of Defense funding has contributed to the
    fielding of ground and sea based defenses to protect U.S. and allied
    forces from short and medium range missiles. The Patriot Advanced
    Capability-3 system, for example, performed successfully in an
    operational environment during Operation Iraqi Freedom, successfully
    intercepting and destroying enemy missiles in every engagement.
        I agree that non-proliferation, deterrence, and homeland security
    are all important defense priorities, and the Department is working to
    address each. In fact, as part of the New Triad, which combines active
    defenses with strike capabilities and a responsive infrastructure, our
    ballistic missile defense program plays an important role in stemming
    the spread of weapons of mass destruction, deterring our adversaries
    from attacking the United States with ballistic missiles, and defending
    the homeland in the event of a ballistic missile attack.
        Question. The missile defense system experienced two test failures
    in December, 2004 and February, 2005. The system was not declared
    operational at the end of 2004 as had been planned by the
    Administration.
        What criteria will you use to determine whether or not the system
    will be declared operational? When do you believe this will occur? Will
    you move forward with declaring the system operational if future tests
    fail?
        Answer. We have fielded the initial set of capabilities necessary
    to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile. The system is currently in
    a ``shakedown period'' under which our crews are gaining valuable
    experience in operating the system, and should some threat arise, we
    could transition the system from a test phase to an operational phase
    in a short period of time.
        A decision to put the system on a higher level of alert will be
    based on a number of factions. These factors include: the advice I
    receive 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.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to General Richard B. Myers
                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. What type of submunition will the Army and Marine's
    Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) carry? Will it have a
    self-destruct mechanism? What is its predicted failure rate?
        Answer. The M-30 Guided Multiple-Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)
    carries dual-purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM)
    submunitions equipped with mechanical fuzes. A self-destruct fuze is
    not currently available to support production in fiscal year 2006. In
    operational testing, the dud rate at ranges between 20-60 kilometers
    was 1.8 percent, and the average dud rate of all other ranges (less
    than 20 kilometers and greater than 60 kilometers) was 3.65 percent.
        Question. Of the 1,026 (Army) and 648 (Marines) GMLRS rockets
    requested, how many would have unitary warheads and how many would
    carry submunitions?
        Answer. All M-30 GMLRS rockets procured in fiscal year 2006 will be
    equipped with DPICM submunitions. In accordance with fiscal year 2005
    appropriations language directing unitary munitions procurement
    acceleration, 486 GMLRS unitary variants with a two-mode fuze are being
    procured under a low-rate initial production (LRIP-II) contract. This
    unitary variant will be available in fiscal year 2007.
        Question. In February 2003 the Army awarded a contract to
    manufacture 500,000 self-destruct fuzes for 105 mm M915 artillery
    shells yet it has requested no money to retrofit those weapons. Why?
        Answer. The self-destruct fuze effort for the 105 mm M915 is new
    production, and, therefore, money for retrofit is not required.
        Question. Why was the Army's fiscal year 2005 request for money to
    retrofit 155 mm projectiles carrying submunitions with self-destruct
    devices cut from $42.2 million to $17.9 million in the final
    Appropriations Act?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2005 funding was redirected from 155 mm self-
    destruct fuze retrofit because technological progress in the production
    of electronic self-destruct fuzing has not matured at the pace
    initially anticipated.
        Question. Were the 2,000 Hydra 70 MPSM HE M261 rockets requested by
    the Army in fiscal year 2005 actually procured?
        Answer. No. While the fiscal year 2005 budget request for Hydra 70
    rockets included an overall quantity of 176,000 for the Army, none of
    the requested munitions were of the multi-purpose submunition high
    explosive (MPSM HE) M261 variant. The Army's move to ``smarter'' Hydra
    70 rockets led to a realignment of overall Hydra funding and the end of
    procuring the MPSM HE M261 cluster munitions after fiscal year 2003.
        Question. Why did the Air Force decide not to request procurement
    money for the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) this year?
        Answer. The Air Force weighed its procurement priorities and chose
    to terminate the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispense--Extended Range
    (WCMD-ER) production starting in fiscal year 2006. While WCMD-ER would
    provide improvements over the existing WCMD inventory, the Air Force
    determined that WCMD-ER was not as important as other Air Force
    priorities.
        The Department of Defense continues to procure cluster munitions in
    the form of sensor fuzed weapons (SFW) for targets requiring cluster
    effects and also continues to evaluate the need for cluster munitions.
        Question. Why did the Secretary of Defense cut funding for the Air
    Force's WCMD-Extended Range in the Program Budget Decision, December
    2004?
        Answer. In the President's Budget for 2006, critical budget
    shortfalls were balanced, and the Department of the Air Force
    identified WCMD-ER for termination. While WCMD-ER would provide
    improvements over the existing WCMD inventory, the Department balanced
    the continued modification in light of other priorities.
        The Department of Defense continues to procure cluster munitions in
    the form of SFW for targets requiring cluster efforts and also
    continues to evaluate the need for cluster munitions.
        Question. Has the Air Force evaluated the performance of the CBU-
    105 (Sensor Fuzed Weapon) in Iraq? Does it plan to do so?
        Answer. The Air Force has employed 68 CBU-105s in Operation IRAQI
    FREEDOM. Formal performance measures have not been collected due to the
    difficult nature of post-attack assessments of SFW submunitions.
    Assessment is difficult because the small projectiles do not leave
    readily identifiable damage other than small holes. Additionally, many
    CBU-105 targets were either completely destroyed or moved from their
    original locations by the Iraqi army. Anecdotally, the Air Force has
    received informal feedback from various credible sources in the field
    on CBU-105 performance, and it has all been extremely positive.
        Question. What weapon will the 15 CBU-87 cluster bomb dispensers
    the Air Force requested this year be used for?
        Answer. The 15 CBU-87(T-3)/B bomb dispensers requested are inert
    dispensers for use as air training munitions used in conjunction with
    the BLU-97(D-4)/B. The ``T-3'' nomenclature indicates a CBU-87
    dispenser equipped with a proximity sensor that initiates canister
    opening and dispersion of inert BLU-97(D-4)/B test submunition. The
    BLU-97 provides realistic training and evaluation of dispenser and
    munitions characteristics and can be dropped from a variety of
    aircraft.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Our next subcommittee
    meeting will be a closed session this afternoon at 2:30 to
    discuss classified programs in the 2006 budget. Our next open
    session will be Tuesday, May 10, at 10 a.m., when we will
    receive testimony on the defense medical programs.
        The subcommittee stands in recess. We thank you all for
    your attendance.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
    May 10.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                Medical Programs

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

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. My apologies, gentlemen. Too many
    telephones and e-mails. It is one of those things.
        We do welcome you to our hearing today to review the
    Department of Defense (DOD) medical programs. We have two
    panels scheduled. First, we will hear from the Surgeons
    General, followed by the Chiefs of the Nursing Corps. Joining
    us today from the Army, we have Surgeon General Kevin Kiley and
    Admiral Donald Arthur from the Navy. We welcome you both in
    your first hearing before us and look forward to working with
    you closely. We welcome back General Peach Taylor from the Air
    Force.
        The President's fiscal year 2006 request for the defense
    health program is $19.8 billion, an 8.9 percent increase over
    fiscal year 2005. The request provides for health care for over
    8.9 million beneficiaries and the operation of 70 inpatient
    facilities and 1,085 clinics.
        Despite the increase for this year's funding, the
    subcommittee remains concerned that the funding may not be
    sufficient to meet all of the requirements. We recognize that
    the continuing conflict in Iraq and the global war on
    terrorism, along with rising costs of prescription drugs and
    related medical services, will continue to strain your
    financial resources requested in this budget. And they will
    place a demand on our medical service providers, both those
    deployed in combat and those manning the posts here at home.
        Senator Inouye and I are familiar with the value of
    military medicine, and we are interested in hearing from you
    regarding continuing operations.
        Let me yield to my good friend from Hawaii.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
    to join you in welcoming our witnesses this morning as we
    review the state of the Department's medical programs. General
    Taylor, we welcome you back to our subcommittee.
        It is our hope that this hearing will spotlight the
    numerous medical advances achieved by the men and women of the
    medical corps and also accelerate improvement and progress
    where it might be needed. The chairman and I, since World War
    II, have followed the advances in personnel protection and
    combat casualty care which have changed the fate of thousands
    of our military men and women.
        The improvements in battlefield protection and combat care
    have given our military the lowest level of combat deaths in
    history. While there is still regrettable loss of life in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, the fact that we are saving hundreds of lives,
    which could not have been saved in past military operations, is
    proof that these advances are paying off. Several factors
    contribute to this change, and we have read your testimony and
    you have outlined several of them, including medical training
    and facilities operated by the services.
        The training our medical personnel can receive cannot be
    equated with the private sector. One cannot deny that there are
    major differences in the medical requirements of our men and
    women serving in the military to the care required in your
    average civilian hospital. The personnel training and
    facilities of our medical system are all part of the elaborate
    network that feed off each other. Today these pieces are all
    connected and are continuing to make historic advances.
    However, it appears that this system could be on a brink of
    destruction.
        We have been told that there is a chance that the Uniformed
    Services University of Health Sciences and Walter Reed Medical
    Center are potential targets for the base realignment and
    closure (BRAC). I hope not, because I believe this would be a
    tragic mistake. Our military medical facilities are essential
    to winning the global war on terrorism, and as you may know,
    the Senate included language in the supplemental conference
    report directing that funding available to the Department of
    Defense should not be used to close any military medical
    facility which is conducting critical medical research or
    medical training or caring for wounded soldiers. It is our hope
    that this message is received by the Department loud and clear
    before the BRAC list is compiled.
        As a footnote to all of this, the chairman and I have,
    throughout the years, visited with our troops, and in each
    visit, we find that the major concern of all of them has been
    health care. Is my wife being cared for? Are the pediatricians
    working on my child? And I think we should keep in mind that
    there are many men and women who enlist because of the
    availability of health care.
        It is no secret that we are having problems at this time in
    recruiting and retaining, and if we take this benefit away,
    then I think we will have real problems. So we look forward to
    discussing this and many other issues that are crucial to the
    military medical system.
        Once again, I would like to thank the chairman for
    continuing to hold hearings on these issues that are important
    to our military and their families. I thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        General Kiley, do you want to go first? We cannot figure
    out who should be first. Please, we would be glad to have your
    testimony.
        General Kiley. Sir, I would be happy to.
        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, I am Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley, and I
    am honored to serve as the 41st Surgeon General of the United
    States Army.
        Our medical department, our Army Medical Department
    (AMEDD), is at war in support of our Army, defending our great
    Nation in the global war on terrorism. Since September 2001,
    the Army has been involved in the most prolonged period of
    combat operations since Vietnam. One key indicator of the
    success of our medical training, doctrine, and leadership is
    our casualty survivability. During Vietnam, approximately 24
    percent of all battle casualties died. As recently as Operation
    Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 22 percent of our battle casualties
    did not survive their wounds. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, less
    than 10 percent of these soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen
    have died of their wounds.
        This improved survivability is due to superior training of
    our combat medics, leveraging technology to provide
    resuscitative surgical care far forward on the battlefield, the
    superb efforts of the Air Force's critical care aeromedical
    evacuation teams, and the advanced research and state-of-the-
    art care available at our major medical centers such as
    Landstuhl, Walter Reed, Brooke, and Madigan, as well as other
    sister services.
        This phenomenal improvement in survivability is also due to
    great teamwork on the part of the three services, the United
    States (U.S.) medical industry, and the Members of Congress who
    have supported numerous advancements in combat casualty care.
    On behalf of the Army, I would like to thank you for your
    tremendous support over the years and tell you how much I look
    forward to working with this subcommittee to improve even
    further our ability to sustain the health of the Army family,
    whether it be in combat or at camps, posts, and stations around
    the world in support of the global war on terrorism.
        I would like to take a few minutes to explain how the
    entire Army Medical Department integrates its multiple
    functions to project and sustain a healthy and medically
    protected Army. We are most certainly an AMEDD at war. Since
    the spring of 2003, the Army has sustained a deployed
    population averaging 125,000 soldiers in Southwest Asia, while
    maintaining our global commitments around the world. We have
    mobilized more than 349,000 Reserve component soldiers.
        The demands placed on the Army Medical Department to
    support this effort across the entire spectrum of operations is
    significant. To support the deployed force, more than 36,000
    Army medics, physicians, nurses, dentists, allied health care
    professionals, health care administrators, and our enlisted
    personnel have deployed into Southwest Asia. Nearly 20,000 of
    these personnel are active duty component, and this total
    represents approximately half of the Army's active medical end
    strength not involved in long-term training, our residencies
    and internships. Many of these soldiers are deploying for the
    second time in 4 years. On the battlefield, they have provided
    care to more than 21,000 injured or ill soldiers who were
    evacuated from theater to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and
    then hospitals in the United States, often within 1 or 2 days
    of injury, and have also cared for more than 16,000 Iraqi
    nationals, coalition soldiers, and U.S. civilians. Fifty-one
    AMEDD personnel have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        In theater, our Active and Reserve component medical units
    deliver a standard of care comparable to what soldiers and
    their families receive at our installations here in the United
    States. Technological advancements and improved aeromedical
    evacuation allow us to reduce our initial medical footprint in
    theater to 6 percent of the deployed force, down from 14
    percent in Operations Desert Shield and Storm. Innovative
    medical health care providers have introduced techniques
    normally found in major medical centers to our deployed combat
    support hospitals. As an example, Lieutenant Colonel Trip
    Buckenmaier pioneered the use of advanced regional anesthesia
    and pain management while deployed with the 31st Combat Support
    Hospital with tremendous success. This technique allows
    complicated surgical procedures to be performed on a conscious
    soldier using spinal anesthesia and nerve blocks. It holds
    great promise to improve patient recovery and minimize
    postoperative complications common with general anesthesia,
    certainly as well as making those soldiers much more
    comfortable.
        Back in the United States, our Army Medical Command
    supports the deployment of active component and mobilization
    and deployment of Reserve component units. Our medical
    treatment facilities conduct pre- and post-deployment medical
    screening to ensure soldiers are medically ready to deploy and
    to withstand the rigors of the modern battlefield. Nearly
    23,000 mobilized Reserve component soldiers have developed an
    illness or an injury during their mobilization that required
    the Army to place them in a medical holdover status.
    Approximately two-thirds of these soldiers are returned to the
    Army in a deployable status in an average time of approximately
    93 days from entering medical holdover.
        All of our major medical centers are engaged in providing
    the best possible treatment and rehabilitation to combat
    casualties. You are familiar with the tremendous care provided
    at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, but just as noteworthy is
    the care provided to wounded soldiers at William Beaumont,
    Womack, Madigan, Darnall, Eisenhower, and Tripler Army Medical
    Center, as well as some of our relatively smaller facilities at
    Forts Carson, Stewart, Riley, and Drum, among others.
        We recently expanded our medical amputee program to include
    a second amputee center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San
    Antonio, Texas. This center, collocated with the Institute for
    Surgical Research and the Army Burn Unit, will allow us to
    build upon the innovative care delivered at Walter Reed and to
    export advances in the treatment and rehabilitation of amputees
    and extremity injuries to not only military facilities but the
    rest of the medical community.
        During this period of unprecedented operational tempo, we
    have maintained and improved the quality of care we deliver to
    soldiers, their families, and our retirees. Despite less than
    100 percent backfill for deployed health care providers, we
    have maintained workload levels in our direct health care
    facilities. It is true that private sector workload is
    increasing, but not because we are doing less work at our
    facilities. As we have had to prioritize workload to support
    casualty care and deployment medical screening, family member
    and retiree care has, in some cases, shifted to the private
    sector. Additionally, families of mobilized Reserve component
    soldiers now have TRICARE available to them as their health
    insurance in many areas where military facilities do not exist
    or do not have the capacity to absorb the additional enrollees.
        We have also completed a successful transition to the next
    generation of TRICARE contracts. The reduction in the number of
    regions, a national enrollment database, and increased
    flexibility on the part of market managers, our military
    treatment facility (MTF) commanders, will greatly enhance our
    ability to support ongoing mobilization and deployments, Army
    transformation, and upcoming base realignment and closure
    decisions.
        In closing, I want to emphasize that the defense health
    program is a critical element of Army readiness. Healthy
    soldiers capable of withstanding the rigors of modern combat,
    who know their families have access to quality, affordable
    health care, and who are confident when they retire they will
    have access to that same quality health care, is an incredibly
    powerful weapons system. Every dollar invested in the defense
    health program does much more than just provide health
    insurance to the Department's beneficiaries. Each dollar is an
    investment in military readiness. In Operation Iraqi Freedom
    (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), that investment has
    paid enormous dividends, and in my visits to Iraq, I can
    document that personally.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, I would like to thank you for your past and future
    support and, sirs, I look forward to answering your questions.
    Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
    for your support of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) which is
    providing world class care to Soldiers in Operations Enduring and Iraqi
    Freedom (OEF/OIF). Without your support we would not have had the
    resources to develop and refine multiple health care initiatives
    designed to enhance and improve medical care for Soldiers and their
    families before, during and after deployments. The AMEDD is at war and
    is spread around the world with an unprecedented operational tempo. I
    returned from my first visit to Iraq in mid-March and am extremely
    proud of the remarkable professionalism and compassionate performance
    of the entire AMEDD team in combat, preparing units for deployment and
    return, and maintaining the health of Soldiers, retirees, and their
    families at home.
        In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States and our allies continue
    to struggle with forces opposed to freedom. Soldiers know that from the
    91W combat medic riding alongside them in convoy, to the aid station
    and combat support hospital, and throughout the evacuation chain to
    Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and on to home-station hospitals in
    the States, they will receive rapid, compassionate care from the
    world's best military medical force.
        Our medical force in Iraq and Afghanistan has saved hundreds of
    lives--Soldiers, civilians and even those who fight against us--due to
    remarkable battlefield techniques, patient transportation and
    aeromedical evacuation, and state-of-the-art equipment and personnel.
    Battlefield health care for OEF and OIF has been enhanced by placing
    state-of-the-art surgical and medical care far forward on the
    battlefield providing life saving care within minutes after injury.
    This far forward care is integrated with a responsive and specialized
    aeromedical evacuation that quickly moves patients to facilities for
    follow-on care. Improved disease prevention and environmental
    surveillance has reduced the rate of non-combat disease to the lowest
    level of any U.S. conflict. In OIF, more than 91 percent of all
    casualties survive their wounds, the highest survivability rate of any
    US conflict.
        We owe this improvement to several advancements. Improvements in
    tactics and protective equipment allow Soldiers to survive previously
    lethal injuries. The best trained combat medics and far forward
    resuscitative care, have also contributed to survivability. Our combat
    support hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan support a full range of
    medical specialties, including many subspecialties like cardio-thoracic
    and neurosurgery. Technology now allows the Military Health System to
    deliver the same care available at Brooke Army Medical Center or Walter
    Reed in Mosul, Baghdad, or Kandahar. Today's Soldiers deserve better
    than essential life-saving care while deployed, they deserve the same
    superb quality care available to them and their families here in the
    United States. I am proud to say that we are doing just that today on
    the battlefields of Southwest Asia.
        I would like to highlight several ongoing successes. Since January
    2002, the U.S. Army Trauma Training Center, in association with the
    Ryder Trauma Center, University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital,
    Miami, FL, has trained 32 Forward Surgical Teams and Combat Support
    Hospital surgical elements deploying in support of the Global War on
    Terrorism--more than 650 Active and Reserve Components (RC) healthcare
    providers. The training program has evolved to provide bonafide total
    team training to physicians, nurses, and medics, all focused on care of
    the acutely injured patient. This unique multidisciplinary pre-
    deployment clinical training has displaced deployment ``on-the-job''
    clinical training as the appropriate training method to ensure safe,
    effective combat casualty resuscitative surgery and care--it is
    clinical teamwork that makes a tremendously positive difference in care
    of the wounded. The Center is recognized as the Department of Defense
    (DOD) Center of Excellence for Combat Casualty Care Team Training and
    received the 2005 DOD Patient Safety Award for Team Training.
        Uncontrolled bleeding is a major cause of death in combat. About 50
    percent of those who die on the battlefield bleed to death in minutes,
    before they can be evacuated to an aid station. Tourniquets, new blood-
    clotting bandages and injectable clot-stimulating medications are
    saving lives on the battlefield.
        All Soldiers are taught to stop bleeding as a Common Task,
    including applying a pressure dressing and a tourniquet, if needed.
    Currently all Soldiers have the means of using a tourniquet. The new
    Soldier Improved First Aid Kit (IFAK) includes a next-generation
    tourniquet. This tourniquet allows a trained, isolated Soldier to stop
    bleeding in an arm or leg. Between March 2003 and March 2005, U.S. Army
    Medical Materiel Center-Southwest Asia issued 58,163 tourniquets (four
    types) to CENTCOM-deployed units. Since April 1, 2004, a total of
    193,897 tourniquets have been issued to Army units deploying to
    theater. This includes 112,697 of two tourniquets proven 100 percent
    effective in control of severe bleeding (Combat Application Tourniquet
    or CAT and SOFTT). Beginning April 1, 2005 all new Soldiers will
    receive specific instruction on the CAT during Basic Combat Training.
    By the end of June 2005, deployed Soldiers without an approved
    tourniquet will all have received the CAT through the U.S. Army
    Medical Materiel Center-Southwest Asia, which placed an order for
    172,000 CATs and 56,000 SOFTTs in mid-March 2005. The vendors expect
    to fill the complete order of 228,000 by the end of June or earlier. In
    fact, by the end of April more than 121,000 of these tourniquets have
    been shipped to Qatar for distribution throughout the CENTCOM theater
    of operations. Soldiers deploying for the next rotation of OIF/OEF will
    either be issued the CAT as an individual item or the IFAK (which
    contains the CAT) through the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI)
    sponsored by Program Executive Office: Soldier.
        The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command continues to
    study a variety of agents which help control moderate to severe
    bleeding including a bandage made of chitosan (HemCon), a
    biodegradable carbohydrate found in the shells of shrimp, lobsters and
    other animals. Chitosan bonds with blood cells, forming a clot.
    Chitosan was shown to be effective in stopping or reducing bleeding in
    more than 90 percent of combat cases, without known complications. The
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared this bandage for use in
    November 2002. Army combat medics are using this bandage in Iraq and
    Afghanistan today.
        War is stressful for Soldiers and their families. The AMEDD has
    taken several steps to help minimize stresses associated with frequent,
    prolonged deployments. There are a wide array of mental health assets
    in Theater. These include Combat Stress Control teams and other mental
    health personnel assigned to combat units and hospitals. We have
    conducted three formal Mental Health Assessments, two in Iraq and one
    in Afghanistan. The reports of the most recent Assessments are pending
    DOD review and release.
        Soldiers receive post-deployment briefings as they return home
    focusing on the challenges of reintegration with families and
    employers. Soldiers are cautioned that their families have changed and
    grown, and that they may have a different role. They are also warned
    about possible symptoms of deployment-related stress, such as
    irritability, bad dreams, and emotional detachment.
        The post-deployment health assessment includes several mental
    health questions. The document is reviewed by a licensed healthcare
    provider. If Soldiers answer positively to the mental health questions,
    the provider may direct further evaluation and/or treatment.
        The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) recently
    announced a DOD policy to require all Service Members to receive a
    second post-deployment mental health assessment 90 to 120 days after
    redeployment. Soldiers may be hesitant to admit or are unsure they are
    experiencing mental health issues when they first return. They are more
    likely to develop or recognize problems and report them three to six
    months later, after the ``honeymoon'' period has worn off. We are
    working diligently to identify and assist Active, Reserve, and National
    Guard Soldiers who experience post-deployment difficulties. There is
    more work to be done in this area and we continue to refine and improve
    our ability to identify and provide early and effective treatment to
    Soldiers who are experiencing post deployment mental health issues.
        A Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) is now becoming a reality,
    modeled after the civilian standard established by Public Law 101-590,
    Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act. The JTTR pulls
    together the medical records of wounded (and deceased) Soldiers cared
    for in battlefield hospitals, and includes both their pre-hospital care
    and subsequent care in CONUS. When complete, the JTTR will present the
    most comprehensive picture of war wounds ever assembled. This medical
    database is invaluable for real-time situational awareness and medical
    research. By combining the JTTR with other personnel and operational
    databases, we anticipate its increased value will lead to improvements
    in Soldier Personal Protective Equipment (e.g. body armor), vehicle
    design, and small unit tactics.
        We remain committed to providing high quality, expert medical care
    to all Soldiers who become ill or injured in the line of duty. There is
    only one standard of medical care for all Soldiers regardless of
    Active, Reserve, or National Guard status. That is why we created the
    Medical Holdover (MHO) program. In an effort to report MHO patient data
    up and down the chain, we created a Medical Holdover module in our
    Medical Operational Data System (MODS), a proven system with robust
    capabilities for patient tracking and Soldier health reporting. Once we
    were convinced that the data was timely and accurate, we began to
    integrate data from other systems, eliminating so-called
    ``stovepipes''. We started with Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) tracking
    data, and now have three more patient tracking and administrative
    systems feeding into MODS. Those measures were so successful that every
    Army major command involved in MHO operations now uses MODS as the sole
    source for information on MHO Soldiers. To further enhance MODS'
    capabilities, we expect to have pay and finance, and personnel data
    integrated over the next 90 days.
        Management and expeditious disposition of MHO Soldiers must balance
    a great number of factors. First, healing takes time. If all combat
    operations ceased today, we would still have MHO patients to care for
    one and one half years from now. Another factor is the simple fact that
    no one knows Soldier health care better than the AMEDD. We know best
    how to treat Soldiers, when Soldiers are fit to return to duty, and
    when they have to undergo a Medical Evaluation Board. For the RC
    Soldier, however, an Army MTF may be hundreds of miles away from home
    and typically, what a Soldier wants most when he or she returns from a
    deployment is to go home.
        In an effort to allow RC MHO Soldiers to receive care close to
    their homes, the Army developed the Community Based Health Care
    Initiative (CBHCI). CBHCI provides top quality health care for ill and
    injured RC Soldiers. It increases the Army's medical treatment, command
    and control, and billeting capacities. Thus, the CBHCI allows the Army
    to reunite Soldiers with their families. The principal instruments of
    the CBHCI are the Community Based Health Care Organizations (CBHCOs).
    These are units staffed primarily by mobilized National Guard Soldiers.
    Their mission is to provide case management for, and ensure command and
    control of healing RC Soldiers. The CBHCOs acquire health care from
    Army, Navy, and Air Force facilities; the VA; and the TRICARE network.
    They represent the Army's commitment to take care of our Soldiers and
    their families with speed and compassion.
        Accession of Health Care Professionals into our Active force is
    becoming a more significant challenge. We are starting to see a
    downturn in our Health Professions Scholarship applicants for both the
    Medical and Dental Corps. Since student scholarship programs are the
    bedrock of Army Medical Department accessions, I have directed my staff
    to closely monitor this trend. We rely on these scholarship programs
    because direct recruitment of fully qualified physicians, dentists and
    nurses is difficult due to the extremely competitive civilian market
    for these skill sets.
        Likewise I am concerned about the retention of health care
    professionals. Their successful retention is a combination of
    reasonable compensation, adequate administrative and support staffs,
    appropriate physical facilities, equity of deployments and family
    quality of life. Changes in Special Pay ceilings have allowed us to
    increase the rates we now offer physicians that sign a four year
    contract. We also have increased the dollar amount that we pay our
    Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists to improve their retention
    rates. We will continue to evaluate and adjust rates to improve our
    retention efforts. At the same time, we have developed and implemented
    programs to affect the non-monetary issues positively effecting
    retention. We have implemented policies that ensure equity of
    deployments by maximizing our deployment pool, providing adequate
    notification of impending deployment, and providing a predictable
    period of family separation. All of these assist us in the retention of
    our active component medical force.
        The Commander, U.S. Army Recruiting Command and I are working
    diligently toward the establishment and implementation of new and
    enhanced initiatives to reverse these emerging trends. Some of these
    include increasing the recruitment of Physician Assistants; the
    development of a program to allow serving officers to obtain a Bachelor
    of Science in Nursing and the direct involvement of my senior medical
    and dental consultants in the recruitment effort to continue to tell
    the story of the practice of Army Medicine. Of equal concern to me are
    the recruitment challenges facing the Army Reserve and National Guard.
    I fully support all of the actions being taken by the Chief of the Army
    Reserve (CAR), LTG Helmly, and the Director, National Guard Bureau, LTG
    Schultz) as they deal with the unique issues surrounding Army Reserve
    recruitment efforts in the current operational environment.
        As with Recruitment, my staff and I continue to work hand in hand
    with the CAR and the Director of the Army National Guard to determine
    programs necessary for adequate retention. RC Soldiers have continually
    answered the call to service and it is critical that we develop the
    appropriate programs to ensure that their expertise and experience are
    not lost. Considering that over 50 percent of the total Army medical
    force is in the Reserve Components, issues surrounding the financial
    and family impact of extended and recurring deployments must be
    addressed and resolved if we are to retain a viable medical force for
    future operations.
        Several related Army and DOD initiatives are creating temporary and
    permanent population changes on our Army installations. They include:
    support of GWOT pre- and post-deployment health; Modularity--now known
    as Army Modular Force (AMF); Training Base Expansion; the Integrated
    Global Basing and Presence Strategy and Base Realignment and Closing
    (BRAC) 2005. These major population shifts create a tremendous
    challenge for Army Medicine as we try to adjust to meet local and
    regional medical markets.
        As we rebalance the military Health System in the affected markets,
    our continued focus is to provide quality health care that is
    responsive to commanders and readily accessible to soldiers and
    families. We are working very closely with commanders, installations,
    arriving units, family support groups and the local communities
    surrounding our installations to ensure that access and quality of
    healthcare remain high. We are leveraging all available AMEDD, DOD and
    VA health care capacity in each locale. We are working closely with our
    TRICARE Regional Offices and Managed Care Support Contractors on
    market-by-market business case analyses to strike the right balance
    between Direct Care and Purchased Care capacity.
        It should be noted that these are solutions pending release of BRAC
    2005, after which the AMEDD will develop permanent plans for
    rebalancing health service support across installations and regions.
    During fiscal years 2005 and 2006, at many installations, even our
    temporary expansions may lag the arrival of Soldiers and family
    members. In the interim, we are extending clinic hours, hiring
    additional staff, and temporarily increasing referrals to TRICARE
    network providers to insure continuity of care.
        The AMEDD is actively engaged in the DOD Patient Safety Program,
    which is a system-wide effort to reduce medical errors combined with
    non-attributional reporting and multi-disciplinary analysis of events.
    The goal is the trending of incidents, identification of lessons
    learned and the implementation of best practices that can be propagated
    system-wide by the Patient Safety Center. The AMEDD is making
    significant strides in creating a culture of patient safety where staff
    is comfortable reporting patient safety events in an environment free
    of intimidation. We are improving error reporting by increasing
    leadership awareness at all levels through multiple approaches
    including collaborative training efforts with the DOD Patient Safety
    Program.
        Communication is the number one causal factor in almost all patient
    safety events. The AMEDD Patient Safety Program has made major
    advancements in team training in targeted high-risk environments such
    as emergency departments, labor and delivery units, and intensive care
    units. DOD's Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS), implemented in
    2001, established a centralized, automated drug data repository
    integrating all DOD patients' medication data from medical treatment
    facility pharmacies, the 54,000 TRICARE retail network pharmacies and
    the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy. As a direct result of this system's
    ability to screen all patients' medications against the complete
    medication profile, PDTS has prevented over 60,000 clinically
    significant drug-drug interactions, which would have otherwise resulted
    in patient harm. In 2004, a multi-year strategic Army Pharmacy
    automation initiative was implemented and focused on preventing
    medication errors and improving medication-use safety through the
    integration of automation technology at all Army pharmacies worldwide.
    This initiative will reduce and prevent medication errors that often
    lead to increased utilization of more costly healthcare.
        The AMEDD continues to work with DOD to improved medical care for
    RC Soldiers and their family members. RC Soldiers and their families
    now receive TRICARE coverage not only while on active duty but also
    before and after. This can lessen the worries of deployed personnel
    about their family members' health and also serve as an incentive for
    experienced Soldiers to remain in the Reserve after their deployment.
    When a RC Soldier is called to active duty for more than 30 days in
    support of a contingency operation, they and their family members have
    full TRICARE coverage up to 90 days before the start of active duty.
    The coverage is the same as that provided for family members of any
    active duty Soldier, including options for TRICARE Prime and TRICARE
    Prime Remote and eligibility for family dental coverage. To ensure
    continuity of care, these Reservists and family members continue to
    receive TRICARE coverage for 180 days after leaving active duty under
    the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP). After TAMP,
    Soldiers may choose to continue TRICARE coverage for their families for
    up to 18 months under the Continued Health Care Benefits Program
    (CHCBP) or to enroll in the new TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) program,
    scheduled to be implemented on April 26, 2005. Under TRS, Soldiers
    agreeing to serve in the Selected Reserve may receive one year of
    purchased TRICARE Standard coverage for their families for each
    consecutive 90 days spent on active duty in support of a contingency
    operation.
        From June to November 2004, TRICARE transitioned from eleven
    contract regions and seven contracts to three CONUS regions. The new
    generation of contracts is performance-based and designed to maximize
    the efficient use of military treatment facilities while flexibly using
    civilian healthcare resources when appropriate. Portability of benefits
    between regions is improved and several functions, such as pharmacy and
    the administration of TRICARE for Life have been consolidated into
    nation-wide contracts. As part of the transition to the new contracts,
    measures are being taken to improve coordination between military
    facilities and civilian network providers and to make access to care
    more patient-centered. TRICARE Online (TOL) offers patients better
    information about their choice of appointments and allows them to make
    appointments after normal duty hours, while reducing the rate of ``no-
    shows.'' Over 50,000 appointments were made through TOL in 2004, and
    the program is being expanded to include more facilities. A commercial-
    off-the-shelf web-based electronic fax service is providing efficient
    transmission of referrals from military treatment facilities to network
    providers. After a successful pilot at 30 facilities, a contract has
    been awarded to provide this service Army-wide. The Enterprise-Wide
    Referral and Authorization process is a high-priority effort to use
    net-centric technology and improved business processes to streamline
    and standardize the referral and authorization of care to network
    providers. The goals of the three-phase plan are to increase patient
    satisfaction, make the referral process more efficient, and to optimize
    allocation of military and civilian healthcare resources. The current
    short-term phase is standardizing several critical processes while
    emphasizing improved handling of urgent referrals.
        The Army continues to improve the quality of healthcare for
    Soldiers and families stationed overseas. The Vicenza Birthing Center
    initiative was driven by cultural differences between child birth
    procedures in local Italian hospitals and U.S. expectations for
    obstetrical and gynecological care. These differences have had an
    adverse impact on family member morale and Soldier readiness for a
    number of years. In multiple venues, U.S. Soldiers and family members
    of the Vicenza community have, with one voice, asked for a safe,
    reliable and accessible U.S. standard of healthcare, particularly in
    regard to obstetrical services. With the deployment of the 173rd
    Airborne Brigade, this concern is even more acute and being championed
    by the U.S. Army Europe Commander. In response to this need, the AMEDD
    developed an interim solution by establishing a temporary birthing
    center at the Vicenza Army Health Clinic. This birthing center will
    accommodate the needs of the vast majority of normal pregnancies and
    births. We will continue to depend on our Italian host nation hospitals
    for emergency obstetrical care. In these cases, care is comparable to
    U.S. standards. The birthing center is currently under construction and
    will be operational by 8 June 2005.
        On December 13, 2002, the Military Vaccine Agency (an executive
    agency of the Army Surgeon General) began implementation of DOD's
    Smallpox Vaccination Program in support of the national smallpox
    preparedness plan announced by the President. The Smallpox Vaccination
    Program is using the existing FDA-licensed smallpox vaccine consistent
    with its label. The program is tailored to the unique requirement of
    the Armed Forces. Like civilian communities, DOD ensures preparedness
    by immunizing personnel based on their occupational responsibilities.
    These include smallpox response teams and hospital and clinic workers,
    as well as designated forces having critical mission capabilities. Like
    other vaccinations, this will be mandated for designated personnel
    unless they are medically exempt. The last year includes both major
    advances and major setbacks in the Military Immunization Program. Since
    December 2002, the DOD has vaccinated more than 770,000 personnel
    (Army: more than 410,000 personnel [military + civilian]) against
    smallpox, representing the largest cohort of smallpox-protected people
    on Earth. These vaccinations have been conducted with great care to
    exempt people with personal medical conditions that bar smallpox
    vaccination. Review by military and civilian experts shows that adverse
    events after smallpox vaccination have been at or below historical
    rates expected among smallpox vaccines. In early 2003, DOD and Army
    clinicians and scientists identified an elevated risk of heart
    inflammation (myo-pericarditis) in male smallpox vaccines in their 20s.
    Our follow-up of these cases shows them to have a rapid and high degree
    of recovery. With clinical teams focused at Brooke and Walter Reed Army
    Medical Centers, we continue to follow these patients and provide them
    state-of-the-art care, to learn more about the condition.
        The Department lost an important countermeasure against anthrax
    weapons in October 2004, when a U.S. District Court judge enjoined
    operation of the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program (AVIP) for
    inoculation using Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) to prevent inhalation
    anthrax. Anthrax spores continue to be the#1 threat among bioweapons.
    Until the injunction, the DOD had administered 5.2 million doses of AVA
    to 1.3 million people (Army: more than 1.9 million doses to over
    500,000 people), as well as assisting with 20 human safety studies
    described in 34 publications in medical journals. In April 2005, the
    Court agreed to allow the DOD to restart the AVIP under a U.S. Food and
    Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization and the Army is
    preparing to administer AVA to individuals between 18 and 65 years of
    age who are deemed by DOD to be at heightened risk of exposure due to
    attack with anthrax. The terms of the Emergency Use Authorization allow
    Soldiers to refuse receiving the AVA without penalty after reviewing
    educational information on AVA. I expect we will restart the program
    under the Emergency Use Authorization by mid-May 2005 for Soldiers
    serving in, or deploying to, Southwest Asia and Korea.
        Army scientists continue their work in research and development of
    new vaccines, including adenovirus vaccines, 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, respectively. Adenovirus vaccine research involves tablets
    to protect against a militarily relevant respiratory germ. Malaria is
    one of the leading infectious causes of death around the world. The
    Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's malaria research program is a
    world leader in this field. Plague vaccine research is centered at the
    US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, another
    world-class asset of the U.S. Army.
        During all this unprecedented activity and keen competition for
    limited resources, the courage, competence and compassion of the
    AMEDD's people amaze me. Despite the long hours, separation from
    family, danger, and hardship required to fight the Global War on
    Terrorism, they remain firmly committed and motivated to provide the
    best possible support for American Soldiers, their families, and all
    others who are entrusted to their care. Nothing saddens us more than to
    lose a Soldier. With your continued support, the AMEDD will continue to
    do everything possible to prevent these terrible losses whether from
    battle wounds or non-battle illnesses and injuries. We will always
    remember our core mission: to preserve Soldiers' lives and health
    anywhere, anytime, in war and in peace. We will never forget the
    Soldier.
                                     ______

            Biographical Sketch of Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley

        Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, M.D., is a 1972 graduate of the
    University of Scranton, with a bachelor's degree in biology. He
    received his medical degree from Georgetown University School of
    Medicine in 1976. He served a surgical internship and then an
    obstetrics and gynecology residency at William Beaumont Army Medical
    Center, El Paso, Texas, graduating in 1980.
        His first tour was with the 121st Evacuation Hospital in Seoul,
    South Korea, where he was the chief of OB/GYN services from 1980 to
    1982. He returned to the residency training program at William Beaumont
    Army Medical Center and served as Chief, Family Planning and Counseling
    Service. He then served as Assistant, Chief of the Department of OB/GYN
    until February 1985.
        He was assigned as the Division Surgeon of the 10th Mountain
    Division, a new light infantry division in Fort Drum, New York. In July
    1985, he assumed command of the newly activated 10th Medical Battalion,
    10th Mountain Division. He served concurrently in both assignments
    until May 1988. He returned to William Beaumont Army Medical Center,
    where he first served as the Assistant Chief, then Chairman of the
    Department of OB/GYN.
        In November 1990, he assumed command of the 15th Evacuation
    Hospital at Fort Polk, Louisiana, and in January 1991, he deployed the
    hospital to Saudi Arabia in support of Operations Desert Shield and
    Desert Storm. Upon his return, he was assigned as the Deputy Commander
    for Clinical Services at Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, North
    Carolina, from November 1991 to November 1993.
        He is a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle
    Barracks, Pennsylvania. He assumed command of the Landstuhl (Germany)
    Regional Medical Center and what is now the U.S. Army Europe Regional
    Medical Command at Landstuhl, Germany, June 30, 1994. He also served
    concurrently as the Command Surgeon, U.S. Army Europe and 7th Army from
    September 1995 to May 1998.
        In April 1998 he assumed the duties as; Assistant Surgeon General
    for Force Projection; Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Health
    Policy and Services, U.S. Army Medical Command; and Chief, Medical
    Corps. On June 5, 2000 he assumed duties as Commander of the U.S. Army
    Medical Department Center and School and Fort Sam Houston and continued
    as Chief of the Medical Corps. He served as the commander of Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center and North Atlantic Regional Medical Command
    and Lead Agent for Region I from June 2002 to June 2004.
        Lieutenant General Kiley assumed the duties of Acting Commander,
    U.S. Army Medical Command on 8 July 2004. After receiving Senate
    confirmation of his nomination, he was sworn in as the 41st Army
    Surgeon General and assumed the duties as Commanding General, U.S. Army
    Medical Command on October 4, 2004. He was promoted to the grade of
    Lieutenant General on October 12, 2004.
        He is a board-certified OB/GYN and a fellow of the American College
    of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
        Among his awards and decorations are the Distinguished Service
    Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (three Oak Leaf
    Clusters), Bronze Star Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal,
    Meritorious Service Medal (two Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Commendation
    Medal, The Army Superior Unit Award (one Oak Leaf Cluster), the ``A''
    professional designator, the Order of Military Medical Merit, and the
    Expert Field Medical Badge.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski, I was not looking in
    your direction. Did you have an opening statement?
        Senator Mikulski. I will do that when I get to my
    questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I apologize for not recognizing
    you.
        Admiral Arthur.

    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DONALD C. ARTHUR, MEDICAL
                CORPS, SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Arthur. Yes. Good morning, Chairman Stevens,
    Senator Inouye, Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much for
    having us here this morning.
        I am not going to read my statement. You have read that and
    I appreciate that.
        Senator Stevens. All of your statements will be printed in
    the record as if read.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. I would like to make some general
    comments and to reiterate some of what is in here, but not all
    of it.
        First, I would like to highlight that we have a series of
    priorities in Navy medicine, and the first will always be our
    readiness. We break readiness down into a number of different
    factors.
        The first and foremost is to make sure that our sailors and
    marines and whatever soldiers, airmen, and coast guardsmen we
    take care of are ready for their duties and are a healthy
    population, as well as their families so that they have the
    confidence that they can go and deploy and we will take care of
    their families.
        Our second readiness priority is to be ready ourselves to
    deploy in whatever manner we are asked to. I was in Iraq in
    December and January. I noticed we had so many significant
    improvements in how we do business in the combat arena over
    Desert Storm where I served with the marines. We had, for
    example, digitized radiography. We had computers all over. We
    had a lot of advanced systems. The thing that was the most
    critical to the care of wounded soldiers and marines over there
    was the training that the corpsmen and medics got. The corpsmen
    and medics were there and delivered the care right at the time
    of wounding. The training of the surgical teams, the rapid
    medevac, and the incredibly great service at Landstuhl on the
    way back to the United States. I think you can be very, very
    proud of the care that your wounded soldiers, marines, sailors,
    airmen, coast guardsmen are getting over there. As Senator
    Inouye said, it is the best in history with the lowest disease
    non-battle injury rate and the greatest survivability in the
    history of combat.
        A third priority for our readiness is homeland security,
    and this is an area of great concern for me because I think
    that in some sectors of our Government, we have not yet fully
    prepared for an attack on our homeland. We have a program with
    the Bethesda Military Medical Center compound, as well as the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) compound right next door,
    and the Suburban Hospital Trauma Center, to form a mega-center
    which could respond to casualties in the National Capital area,
    and you should be seeing more about that very soon.
        Our second priority is to continue to deliver the quality
    health care for which we have become well known. We have the
    advantage of being a health care system as opposed to much of
    the rest of America where I believe we have a disease care
    industry. We get paid not by how many procedures and how many
    immunizations we give, but we get paid by our line and the
    number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines we have on
    duty, and that is our metric for success.
        The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) interviewed me 1 year
    ago for this job that I am currently honored to hold, and he
    asked me could our casualties be seen and treated at civilian
    hospitals, and I said, well, sure they could. They can be very
    well treated at Johns Hopkins or at Mayo Clinic. But those
    hospitals would not understand two things that are critical to
    our treatment of our casualties.
        Number one, that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
    marines' injuries are not just to that person, they are to his
    or her entire family. These are family injuries.
        The second thing that civilian hospitals will not
    understand about our casualties is that even lying at Bethesda
    or Walter Reed, these marines and soldiers are still in combat.
    They still remember the stresses that they incurred in combat
    and we care for them in a way that civilian hospitals could not
    do just because we have the background and we have shared that
    combat experience with them.
        We have another advantage in our delivery of quality health
    services in our collaboration with the Veterans Administration
    (VA). Yesterday Secretary Nicholson opened up the joint DOD-VA
    clinic at Pensacola, Florida. We have joint clinics which we
    are building in Great Lakes and Charleston, South Carolina that
    I think will be of great benefit to both veteran populations.
        Our third priority is to help shape the force of the
    future, not to meet the needs of yesterday but meet tomorrow's
    needs, which will include not just the traditional combat
    casualty care, but also homeland security, stability
    operations, and the global war on terror requirements. This may
    require that we shape our forces differently, that we have some
    different capabilities than we thought we would need if only
    our missions were combat casualty care, and I refer to the
    recent mission of Mercy in Banda Aceh taking care of tsunami
    and disaster relief victims over there. They needed surgeons.
    They needed the combat casualty care type of specialties, but
    they also needed pediatricians, OB-GYN specialists, preventive
    medicine specialists, and all of those specialties that are not
    necessarily planned for combat casualty care.
        We are focusing on Active and Reserve integration; that is,
    that we more fully incorporate our Reserve component in our
    active duty warfighting plans. We now have six Active duty
    fleet hospitals, for example, and two Reserve fleet hospitals.
    We would like to have just eight fleet hospitals that combine
    Active and Reserve components to be more fully integrated.
        One other integration effort that I think would be of great
    benefit is to better integrate the three service medical
    departments in how we train, equip, recruit, supply, and how we
    deploy so that we can be as fully interoperable in the combat
    arena as we can be.
        And last, I would like to thank you very much for your
    support and the encouragement that you have given us in finding
    the best casualty care management for the veterans that are now
    over there in OIF and OEF.
        I apologize. I will have to leave before my colleague, Rear
    Admiral Lescavage, testifies. I have to fly out of town, but we
    are very proud of the accomplishments of our Navy Nurse Corps
    as a member of our team.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Inouye, you mentioned that you were proud of the
    accomplishments of our Medical Corps. I would say one of the
    great benefits of our Medical Department is that we are not
    just a medical corps or a nurse corps of a medical service
    corps or dental corps or a hospital corps. We are a
    combination. We are the team. It is that teamwork, that
    synergistic effort of all of our corps together, that really
    makes us strong. You do not find that in civilian institutions,
    and that is what I think makes our military medical departments
    great.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Admiral.
        [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur

        Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to share with you how Navy
    Medicine is taking care of our nation's Sailors, Marines, and their
    families.
        As our nation continues to fight the Global War on Terror, Navy
    Medicine will continue to meet the health care needs of our
    beneficiaries, active duty, military retirees, and eligible family
    members. These efforts reflect our unrelenting commitment to our
    primary mission--Force Health Protection. The components of Force
    Health Protection are: (1) preparing a healthy and fit force; (2)
    deploying medical personnel to protect our warriors in the battlefield;
    (3) restoring health on the battlefield; (4) providing care to our
    retired warriors through TRICARE for Life; and (5) providing world-
    class health care for all beneficiaries.
    Priorities
        To meet the needs of those entrusted to our care, Navy Medicine
    established five priorities to meet our unique dual mission. That dual
    mission is first, to support and protect our operational forces while
    working in concert with the Chief of Naval Operations' and Commandant's
    vision for the Navy-Marine Corps team, and second, to provide health
    care to their family members and retirees.
                Readiness
        Readiness is our number one priority. To be ready, Navy Medicine
    must be responsive, agile and aligned with operational forces. We need
    to have the right people with the right capabilities ready to deploy in
    support of the Navy-Marine Corps team.
        In current operations, Navy Medicine has made significant
    advancements in the health care provided by First Responders and
    improved surgical access during the critical ``golden hour.'' In
    addition to improving health care after traumatic battlefield injuries,
    Navy Medicine is also curbing infectious disease outbreaks, decreasing
    occupational injuries, and providing preventive medicine and mental
    health care services.
        An outstanding example of Navy Medicine's more capable, flexible
    and responsive force is the creation of the Expeditionary Medical
    Facility (EMF). These facilities, with similar capabilities as Fleet
    Hospitals, are lighter and more mobile and can be set up within 48
    hours. EMFs may be used independently or in combination with the
    theater's joint health system for evacuation, medical logistics,
    medical reporting, and other functions, ensuring better
    interoperability with the Army and the Air Force. The flexibility of
    EMFs continues to evolve to meet operational requirements and provide
    robust medical care for major conflicts, low-intensity combat,
    operations other than war, and disaster/humanitarian relief operations.
        We are also expanding the role of Navy Medicine on the battlefield
    with the 1,000 Sailors either deployed overseas or preparing to deploy
    with Maritime Force Protection Command units. These Sailors receive a
    half-day in training from doctors and hospital corpsmen in how to use
    special medical kits. These ``Point of Injury'' kits contain items like
    an easy to use tourniquet, a specialized compression bandage, QuikClot
    (a product designed to stop bleeding), antibiotic and pain medications.
    These kits are designed for self-care or buddy care in the minutes
    before a corpsman arrives on the scene.
        The Global War on Terror has challenged us to broaden our view of
    medical readiness. Our Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) are prepared
    to respond to any contingency, to provide expert health care to
    casualties returning from theater, and be ready to support the Nation's
    needs in collaboration with the National Disaster Medical System.
    Additionally, Navy Medicine launched three major initiatives to meet
    the needs of disaster preparedness focused on staff, supplies and
    systems.
        Using the Strategic National Stockpile as a model, we are planning
    for additional equipment to enhance the capabilities of local MTFs. We
    developed a successful multi-service online medical and emergency
    management educational tool, as well as an Emergency Management Program
    Readiness Course that has become the DOD Medical training standard. The
    Disaster Preparedness, Vulnerability Analysis Program (DVATEX) was
    developed to evaluate military, federal, and local community
    responsiveness. This program goes beyond assessing MTF threat
    vulnerability and capability assessment; it also provides training in
    medical and operational management.
        Collaboration with other organizations, including other federal and
    civilian agencies, is essential for effective and efficient disaster
    response. A local example of this type of collaboration is taking place
    at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Because of
    its proximity to the National Capital Region, the National Naval
    Medical Center established a disaster preparedness and response
    coalition with the National Institutes of Health and Suburban Hospital
    Healthcare System in Bethesda. Recently, they conducted a joint
    disaster drill involving Montgomery County and municipal emergency
    response organizations and other members of the local area hospital
    network.
        Delivering a more fit and healthy force, mitigating the risk of
    injury or illness, and providing more effective resuscitation of
    battlefield casualties will enhance Navy Medicine's readiness and
    ability to prosecute the Global War on Terror. Medical research and
    development is a critical enabler of this effort. Our research
    investments allow us to transform into a defensive weapon system that
    will promote health and fitness, protect people from injury and
    disease, and effectively reduce, manage and rehabilitate casualties. In
    addition, these research investments and capabilities help Navy
    Medicine respond to the current and future needs of the Fleet and Fleet
    Marine Force.
        Navy scientists conduct basic, clinical, and field research
    directly related to military requirements and operational needs.
    Current studies focus on the efficacy trials for blood substitutes to
    treat combat casualties; new treatment modalities for musculoskeletal
    injuries and acute acoustic barotrauma; and solutions for the emerging
    threats of combat stress, among others. Our medical research laboratory
    facilities equal those at modern academic and industrial institutions.
    Beyond this capacity, a number of these laboratories have unique test
    equipment and specialized software for pursuing research on current and
    projected biomedical problems. Research is further supported in other
    Navy laboratories as well as in partnership with the Army and Air
    Force, and other Federal agencies.
        Research in non-government laboratories is promoted through an
    active collaborative research and technology transfer program that
    develops cooperative research and development agreements with
    universities and private industry to ensure that research products from
    our laboratories benefit the entire country. Navy-supported medical
    research efforts have influenced the civilian practice of medicine,
    assisted the Ministries of Health in developing nations, and provided
    technology for other Federal initiatives.
        Our overseas research facilities are national assets serving the
    strategic interests of the regional Combatant Commander and the local
    Ambassador. They bring unique surveillance capabilities and advanced
    laboratory capabilities to areas where infectious diseases are a
    significant threat to our personnel. These capabilities were recently
    leveraged in the tsunami relief effort in Banda Aceh. In addition to
    supporting the mission of Force Health Protection, the overseas labs
    are strategic partners in promoting Theater Security Cooperation.
    Lastly, they are developing a new alliance with the Centers for Disease
    and Control to further that agency's efforts in mitigating the risk
    that emerging infectious diseases pose to the health of our citizens
    and our economy.
    Quality, Economical Health Services
        Navy Medicine's second priority is providing quality, cost-
    effective health services. While focusing on quality health care, Navy
    Medicine has recognized the need to provide the best possible health
    care within our resource constraints. Through careful business
    planning, Navy Medicine aligned MTF operations to focus on the
    preservation of health, and the prevention of disease and injury.
    Recently, the Naval Health Clinic in Pearl Harbor instituted a new
    Individual Health Readiness (IHR) program. The goal of this program is
    to ensure each Pearl Harbor Sailor is healthy and mission-ready. It was
    established to build and improve total Navy Regional Hawaii health
    readiness in response to a growing number of shore and sea Sailors
    deploying. The IHR program ensures each Sailor has an up-to-date health
    assessment to determine deployment limiting conditions, dental
    readiness, immunization status, lab studies and individual medical
    equipment needs to ensure the command's level of health readiness--both
    dental and medical--is 95 percent or better.
        An enterprise focused on quality must understand what products or
    services have value to its customers and the metrics used to measure
    the delivery of quality health care. In meeting quality standards, Navy
    Medicine must take into consideration regulatory compliance
    requirements, the working environment, as well as evaluating the
    patients' experience.
        The many facets of quality control provide us with constant
    opportunity to evaluate health care delivery. For example, creating a
    fit force translates into improved Medical Readiness for our warriors,
    while ensuring a highly trained and ready Medical team to provide
    compassionate quality care for the wounded, injured, or sick. In
    addition, Navy Medicine has designated a Combat Operational Stress
    Consultant to serve as the Navy and Marine Corps subject matter expert
    on combat and operational stress. This consultant will allow Navy
    Medicine increased oversight and further development of prevention and
    mental health care efforts for our military personnel.
        We established a family-centered care program to enhance patient
    safety, health, cost efficiency and patient and staff satisfaction. We
    are currently working with the TRICARE Management Activity and the
    other services to ensure that the program is widely available. In
    addition, we have coordinated our efforts with other related entities
    within Navy Medicine, such as the Perinatal Advisory Board, to optimize
    our efforts.
        Increased cooperation and collaboration with our federal health
    care partners is essential in providing quality care. As an extension
    of our ability to care for our patients, Navy Medicine's partnership
    with Veterans Affairs medical facilities continues to grow and develop
    into a mutually beneficial partnership. Although not directly related
    to the Military Health System, it is imperative that Navy Medicine
    strengthens its relationship with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    This begins with the seamless transfer of care for injured service
    members to the VA and includes sharing resources to optimize our
    efforts and avoid duplicating services.
        The care for Sailors and Marines who transfer to and receive care
    from a VA facility while convalescing is coordinated through the VA
    Seamless Transition Coordinator. This full time VA staff member is co-
    located at National Naval Medical Center and interacts with OEF/OIF
    Points of Contact at each VA Medical Center. The Seamless Transition
    Program was created by former Veterans' Affairs Secretary Principi
    specifically to address the logistical and administrative barriers for
    active duty service members transitioning from military to VA-centered
    care.
        Although recently-wounded Sailors and Marines differ from the VA's
    traditional rehabilitation patient in age and extent or complexity of
    injury, Navy Medicine and the VA must adapt to meet their needs. In the
    past, patients were admitted to the VA's rehabilitation service with
    multiple clinical services addressing individual requirements. To
    enhance continuity, clinical outcomes, and improved family support,
    National Naval Medical Center physicians now remain as the Case
    Managers throughout the transition process. Currently, weekly
    teleconferences to review Bethesda transfer patients are conducted with
    primary transfer sites, such as the VA Medical Center in Tampa,
    Florida. In addition to site visits and teleconferences, Navy Medicine
    will continue to coordinate with other facilities, forge relationships,
    share best practices, and enhance delivery to all of our patients. This
    level of interaction and cooperation will need to continue at every
    level to ensure the care of our wounded warriors is never compromised.
        With regard to the sharing of resources, the level of sharing
    between DOD and VA health care activities has improved. Navy Medicine
    supports Commanding Officers who pursue sharing and collaboration with
    VA facilities in their communities. In fact, Navy Medicine currently
    manages 28 medical agreements and 45 dental agreements through the
    Military Medical Support Office (an office that coordinates health care
    for active duty members who are stationed in remote areas without local
    Military Medical Treatment Facilities).
        Some of these agreements represent efforts to consolidate support
    functions for the medical facilities. However, other more comprehensive
    examples of resource-sharing efforts between the agencies include: the
    Navy Blood Program at Naval Hospital Great Lakes which uses the North
    Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center spaces to manufacture blood
    products in exchange for blood products, precluding the need for Navy
    to build a new blood center at Naval Hospital Great Lakes; and the DOD/
    VA Federal Pharmacy Executive Steering Committee (FPESC) which was
    charted to oversee joint agency contracts involving high dollar and
    high volume pharmaceuticals designed to increase uniformity and improve
    the clinical and economic outcomes of drug therapy in both systems.
        Navy Medicine is also partnering or planning to partner with the VA
    in five hospital/ambulatory care center construction projects. Naval
    Hospital Pensacola is working with the VA on a joint-venture outpatient
    medical care facility; Naval Hospital Charleston has a future VA
    construction start for a Consolidated Medical Clinic (CMC) aboard Naval
    Weapons Station Charleston, SC; Naval Hospital Great Lakes is
    considering Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic adjacent to the North Chicago
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center's main facility; Naval Hospital Guam is
    considering a project where the VA would accept an adjacent site to
    construct a small freestanding community-based outpatient clinic from
    Navy; and Naval Hospital Beaufort is also considering a future project
    with the VA.
        Guided by Navy Medicine leadership, last year each MTF developed a
    comprehensive business plan focused on meeting operational readiness
    requirements while improving population health. These plans emphasize
    such areas as improved contingency planning, pharmacy management,
    clinical productivity, implementation of evidence-based medicine,
    advanced access, and seamless referral management for beneficiaries.
    Navy Medicine is currently in the process of creating a system that
    will allow MTF commanders to monitor their performance in these areas
    so they can better balance measures of operational readiness, customer
    satisfaction, internal efficiency and human capital development.
        Beginning in the early 1990's, Navy Dentistry began consolidating
    its command suites from 34 commands to 15. The cost savings included
    the elimination of redundant officer, enlisted and civilian support
    personnel formerly involved in the administration of the separate
    command infrastructure. In 2004, Navy Dentistry again consolidated 15
    commands into three. The primary objective of the most recent dental
    consolidation was to integrate Dental Commands with the larger MTF
    command suite in the shared geographical area to eliminate more than 90
    duplicate administrative functions--all of this was accomplished
    without adverse impact on the dental health care delivered and in a
    manner that is transparent to the customers. The remaining three
    commands are the Dental Battalions supporting the Fleet Marine Force.
        As Navy Medicine strives to obtain long-term value through disease
    prevention and increased quality of life, each MTF business plan
    includes a preventive health initiative with the goal of exceeding
    national measures of breast health promotion, long-term asthma
    management and control of diabetes. Our leadership developed guidelines
    for these Navy-wide efforts and created tools to monitor performance in
    these areas. Next year, we plan to expand our efforts to address
    obesity, lack of exercise and tobacco use; with the goal of reducing
    the risk of long-term disabling illnesses.
        Finally, another critical component of providing quality care
    requires that Navy Medicine be an active participant in the
    implementation of the new TRICARE contracts. Although the TRICARE
    benefit structure remains the same, there have been changes in program
    administration that are intended to make health care delivery more
    customer-focused and support better coordination between MTFs and
    civilian provider networks. Organizational changes implemented to
    support the new business environment include the disestablishment of
    Lead Agents and the establishment of three TRICARE Regional Offices
    (TRO) aligned with the regional contracts in the United States--North,
    South, West. Each of the Services was responsible for providing a Flag/
    General Officer or Senior Executive Service civilian dedicated for a
    TRO Director position: Army-North, Air Force-South, Navy-West. The Navy
    has named RADM Nancy Lescavage as the second TRO Director. RADM
    Lescavage is relieving retiring RADM James Johnson in June 2005.
    Shaping Tomorrow's Force
        The Navy and Marine Corps are reshaping the fighting force by
    defining future requirements, including the medical requirements of the
    warfighters. As a result, Navy Medicine's third priority--Shaping
    Tomorrow's Force--focuses on recruiting, training, and retaining the
    most capable uniformed members to match manpower to force structure to
    combat capability. This is an important piece of the Department of the
    Navy's more comprehensive Human Capital Strategy.
        Navy Medicine is quickly transforming in concert with the Navy and
    Marine Corps to provide medical support to the fighting forces as they
    adapt to the changing nature of global warfare, including emerging
    missions such as: humanitarian operations, regional maritime security,
    providing care for detainees, and homeland defense--all of which place
    additional requirements on shaping the force of the future. Our
    uniformed personnel will participate in increasingly complex joint
    environments and move efficiently between forward deployed settings and
    fixed facilities ashore. We must be proficient and productive at the
    right cost.
        A recent example of the Navy Medicine's flexibility in engaging in
    a humanitarian mission would be the rapid response to the earthquake
    and tsunamis that struck the Indian Ocean. Within days, U.S.S. Abraham
    Lincoln and U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard were en route to assist those in
    need. U.S. helicopters from Lincoln and from Bonhomme Richard
    Expeditionary Strike Group, afloat in the Indian Ocean, proved
    invaluable in delivering relief supplies to remote areas. After the
    carrier strike group left, one of the Navy's hospital ships, U.S.N.S.
    Mercy, took over the mission and deployed with a robust medical
    capability and the support services appropriate for disaster relief.
    The ship offered shipboard health services and sea-based support to a
    variety of military and civilian support agencies, including U.S. non-
    government organizations, involved in the relief effort. In addition,
    Sailors from the Navy Environmental Preventive Medicine Unit out of
    Pearl Harbor worked on improving sanitation and holding down mosquito
    populations, while ship's nurses went ashore and conducted classes on
    patient care.
        Currently, Navy Medicine is deployed afloat and ashore in five
    geographic regions, providing preventive medicine, combat medical
    support, health maintenance, medical intelligence and operational
    planning. This operational tempo, along with the nature of casualties
    from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom, has created new demands for
    medical personnel in terms of numbers and types of specialties needed.
    As a result, Navy Medicine analyzed the uniformed and civilian
    communities of medical and dental providers to ensure it is meeting
    operational requirements as efficiently as possible.
        In order to meet the transformation requirements, the uniformed and
    civilian personnel composition of some Navy medical specialties will
    change in the near future. For example, over 1,700 non-readiness
    related military positions are being converted into civilian positions
    in 2005. We want to ensure operational requirements are fulfilled by
    uniformed personnel-while identifying those functions that can be
    performed by civilian or contractor personnel. Our intent is not to
    eliminate positions, but rather to reduce the number of active duty
    personnel performing non-readiness functions.
        A key component of Shaping Tomorrow's Force is the quality and
    innovative delivery of education and training provided to medical
    personnel. Streamlining our education and training assets has served us
    well as Navy Medicine embraces new technologies and methods of
    learning. These new technologies will have a profound impact upon
    quality of training and in saving money and time. By maximizing the use
    of remote-learning capabilities, Navy Medicine ensures that medical
    personnel have access to the right training at the right time. Also, we
    continue to study the value of advanced simulation training for our
    health care providers. By introducing simulated patients into the
    training curriculum, medical personnel are able to practice skills in
    an environment that will prepare them for real world situations.
    One Navy Medicine: Active and Reserve
        Navy Medicine is one team. It is comprised of tremendously capable
    individuals--Active Duty, Reserve and Civilian. We must seamlessly
    integrate the talents and strengths of our entire workforce to
    accomplish our dual mission--Force Health Protection and quality health
    care to our beneficiaries.
        One of our goals is to better utilize the expertise of our Reserve
    force by increasing integration with the active duty component. We no
    longer have separate Active and Reserve fleet hospitals, but one fleet
    hospital system where Reservists work side-by-side with active duty
    personnel. The establishment of these Operational Health Support Units
    (OHSU) has created increased cooperation and collaboration between both
    components. In addition, consolidation of dental units into the OHSUs
    has been done to mirror changes implemented by Navy Medicine's active
    component.
        Reservists comprise 20 percent of Navy Medicine's manpower
    resources and their seamless integration with our active duty force is
    a major priority in achieving our ``One Navy Medicine'' concept. Since
    the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 3,700 Reservists
    have been activated to be forward deployed or to meet the needs of MTFs
    whose active duty personnel were deployed. In addition, the Navy's
    Expeditionary Medical Facility Dallas deployed earlier this year to
    Kuwait with 382 people, 366 of which were Reservists.
        Through an innovative Medical Reserve Utilization Program (MEDRUP),
    Navy Medicine's headquarters assumes operational control of medical
    Reservists called to active duty. They are selected using an
    information system that manages more than 6,000 Navy medical Reservists
    and matches personnel to requirements based on qualifications,
    availability and criteria. This system has proven indispensable in
    employing Reservists in support of the Global War on Terror.
        Finally, with regard to the Reserve Component, Navy Medicine
    provides physical and dental services to the Navy's Reserve Force
    (71,500) and Marine Corps Reserve (37,734) personnel in support of
    individual medical readiness--a critical component prior to
    mobilization.
    Delivery of Joint Defense Health Services
        Navy Medicine's final priority addresses how we jointly operate
    with the Army and Air Force. Ideally, all U.S. medical personnel on the
    battlefield--regardless of service affiliation--should have the same
    training, use the same communications system and operate the same
    equipment because we are all there for the same reason--to protect our
    fighting forces. It should not matter whether the casualty is a
    Soldier, a Sailor, an Airman or a Marine. The individual should receive
    the same care, and service medical personnel should be similarly
    trained to provide this same level of care. Along with the Army and the
    Air Force, Navy Medicine is actively pursuing the concept of
    standardized operating procedures to ensure consistency of health care
    and interoperability of our medical forces through a Unified Medical
    Command. As a Unified Medical Command, the mission of our separate
    medical departments could implement reductions to the internal costs of
    executing our missions while providing a framework of interoperability
    among the services.
        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, while at the same time protecting our citizens
    throughout the United States.
        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., AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL,
                DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
        General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator
    Mikulski, and other members of the subcommittee, it is a
    privilege and pleasure to be here today. I look forward to
    working with you on our common goals to ensure a sustained high
    quality of life for our military members and their families. We
    appreciate your interest and support in providing for America's
    heroes.
        I am proud to say that the men and women of the Air Force
    Medical Service have done an exceptional job throughout
    Operations Nobel Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom in
    providing the expeditious, state-of-the-art health care for
    Active duty and Reserve component personnel of all the
    services. We attribute our success to our continued focus on
    four health effects: providing care to casualties, ensuring a
    fit and healthy force, preventing disease and injury, and
    enhancing human performance.

                         EXPEDITIONARY MEDICAL SUPPORT

        Our light, lean, and mobile expeditionary medical support
    (EMEDS), is the linchpin of our ground mission. Our EMEDS
    modularity has supported our field commanders by ensuring the
    right level of medical care is provided to our warriors
    wherever they are. As important, the speed with which we can
    deploy EMEDS is unprecedented, making EMEDS the choice for
    special forces and quick reaction forces in the United States,
    as well as abroad.
        As part of a joint team, we now have more than 600 medics
    in 10 deployed locations, including running the large theater
    hospital in Balad, Iraq, and two smaller hospitals in Kirkuk
    and at the Baghdad International Airport. Just as in the
    States, these serve as regional medical facilities for all the
    services.
        Our approximately 400 aeromedical evacuation personnel, the
    majority of them Guard and Reserve, are doing incredible work,
    accomplishing more than 55,000 patient movements since the
    beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        In addition, partnering with our critical care air
    transport teams, our aeromedical evacuation system has made it
    possible to move seriously injured patients with astonishing
    speed, as short as 36 hours from the battleground to stateside
    medical care, unheard of even a decade ago.

                     DEPLOYMENT HEALTH SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

        Caring for our troops also means ensuring that they are
    healthy and fit before they deploy, while they are deployed,
    and when they return home. We work very, very hard on our
    deployment health surveillance program. The payoff has been
    that we had the lowest disease non-battle injury rates of all
    time. That care extends beyond the area of operations. Since
    the first of January 2003, we have accomplished 100,000 post-
    deployment assessments for Air Force Active duty and Reserve
    component personnel with 9.5 percent requiring follow-up for
    deployment related medical or dental health concerns. We are
    meticulously tracking every airman to ensure that he or she
    receives all the health care needed, including mental health
    help, which I would like to describe in some detail.
        We deploy two types of mental health teams to support our
    deployed airmen, a rapid response team and an augmentation
    team. We currently have 49 mental health personnel deployed for
    current operations, 31 of whom are supporting Army or joint
    service requirements. Behavioral indicators during OEF and OIF
    are encouraging. In our review of data from fiscal years 2000
    and 2004, child abuse rates remained virtually unchanged, and
    spouse abuse rates and alcohol-related incident rates actually
    declined over the past 5 years. To date, there have been no Air
    Force suicides in Iraq or Afghanistan during OEF or OIF.
        However, we are increasingly supporting Army and Marine
    operations. We need to be prepared for our Air Force troops to
    have greater exposure to traumatic stress. Initiatives to
    reassess the mental health status of our personnel, 90 to 180
    days post-deployment, will allow us to better monitor and
    address mental health needs as they emerge.

                              FIT TO FIGHT PROGRAM

        Another critical way we are protecting the health of Air
    Force members is with a revitalized physical fitness program
    that will improve their safety and performance in the
    expeditionary environment and help them survive significant
    injury and illness. Our fitness centers have seen an
    approximate 30 percent jump in use. I am proud to be part of
    General Jumper's strong push, fit to fight, an initiative that
    has focused on both the individual and commander
    responsibilities for health and well-being.

                     EPIDEMIC OUTBREAK SURVEILLANCE PROJECT

        Our prevention efforts also include cutting edge research
    and development, such as the epidemic outbreak surveillance
    project (EOS), an Air Force initiative that combines existing
    and emerging biodefense technologies that will eventually be
    deployed worldwide for near real-time total visibility of
    biological threats to our troops. Through gene shift
    technology, EOS will offer us the power of knowing when and who
    a disease is stalking. This is the incredible medicine of the
    future that will change how we do business forever, and we are
    doing it now in the Air Force.

       COMPOSITE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND OPERATIONAL RISK TRACKING SYSTEM

        Another of our exciting initiatives, created with your
    help, is the composite occupational health and operational risk
    tracking system known as COHORT, a program that links Air Force
    information systems such as personnel and operational medical
    systems to surveillance activities, allowing us to track the
    occupational health of our personnel throughout their careers
    and beyond.
        We are also particularly grateful to this subcommittee for
    support of our crucial laser eye protectant initiative which
    will help us study, prevent, detect, and treat laser eye
    damage.
        We continue to partner with civilian institutions for
    training in critical care, such as our Center for Sustainment
    of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS) platform at Baltimore
    Shock Trauma, as well as groundbreaking research in
    telemedicine and other areas.

                                    TRICARE

        Perhaps not as high-tech, but certainly one of the greatest
    tools we have to ensure the health of our troops is TRICARE.
    The TRICARE strategy is vitally important to us, even more so
    in wartime. It supplants direct care for the Active duty
    member, provides peace of mind that family members are taken
    care of, and ensures health care access for our Guard and
    Reserve members in all our communities. Peacetime health care
    through TRICARE cannot be separated from our primary wartime
    mission. We have one mission: to care for our troops and their
    families.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        There remain great challenges in our military health care
    system. These include sustaining a world-class environment of
    practice for our men and women practicing medicine and
    dentistry in military facilities around the globe. I am eager
    to work with the Congress as we mold and improve your military
    health care system, a system that has no peer, no rival, one
    that is true to those who work in it every day and one that is
    deserving of the sacrifice and dedication of men and women in
    uniform.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General George Peach Taylor, Jr.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, 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 battle front and the home front.
        Air Force medics continue to prove their mettle, providing first
    class healthcare to more than 1.2 million patients. Additionally, we
    continue to have medics far from home, supporting air and land
    operations from the Philippines to Kyrgyzstan to Iraq.
        The Air Force Medical Service, or AFMS, and medics from our sister
    services have undertaken the most significant changes in military
    medicine since the beginning of TRICARE. In the last few years, we have
    fielded the largest increase in benefits since the creation of Medicare
    and CHAMPUS in the mid-1960s.
        At the same time, we are medics at war. We have been engaged in
    battle for nearly 4 years. Not since Vietnam has our operations tempo
    been as elevated. Not since then has combat been as continuous. The
    Global War on Terror is the most significant engagement of this
    generation . . . and I am immensely proud of the medical and dental
    care we provide anywhere, anytime.
        Some have the opinion that wartime and peacetime care are two
    separate and distinct missions. I disagree strongly. We have one
    mission: to care for our troops, which includes their families. The
    home-station and deployment sides of that mission are inextricably
    linked. We are able to achieve the necessary balance because of our
    ability to focus on what we call our four health effects, the four most
    important services medics contribute to the fight. The four health
    effects are:
        (1) Ensuring a fit and healthy force
        (2) Preventing illness and injury
        (3) Providing care to casualties, and
        (4) Enhancing human performance
        These four effects are what medics must bring to the fight,
    everyday, from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, to Balad Air Base
    in Iraq.

                        ENSURING A FIT AND HEALTHY FORCE

    Air Force Fitness Program
        The Air Force's most important weapon system is the Airman. We
    invest heavily in our people to ensure they are mentally and physically
    capable of doing their job. They need to be; we ask them to launch
    satellites, fix aircraft, perform surgery, pilot multi-million dollar
    aircraft, and thousands of other tasks used to support and execute
    battle. Commanders need their Airmen to perform these tasks in harsh
    environments, under extreme stress, often under fire. If any of them is
    unfit or too ill to accomplish their roles, the mission suffers.
        The Roman General Renatus wrote that ``little can be expected from
    men who must struggle with both the enemy and disease.''
        In other words, if we aren't fit, we can't fight.
        Two years ago, General Jumper, our Chief of Staff, unveiled the Air
    Force's new program to improve fitness. The Fit to Fight initiative
    puts greater emphasis on physical fitness training to enhance not only
    the ability of Airmen to work in the challenging expeditionary
    environment, but also the ability to sustain significant injury and
    illness far from home and be able to survive field care and long-
    distance aeromedical evacuation. Fit to Fight is working. Across the
    Air Force, fitness center managers report that usage of their
    facilities is up 30 percent. The results: before the program started
    only 69 percent of Airmen passed their fitness test. Now, even with
    more stringent requirements, we have an 80 percent pass rate.
        Additionally, a secure web site gives commanders up-to-the-minute
    reports on the status of their active duty, Guard, and Reserve troops'
    fitness levels. Now leaders know instantly what percentage of their
    troops are fit to fight.
        True fitness is measured by more than strength and stamina--it
    involves a whole person concept that includes physical, dental, and
    mental health. Our Deployment Health Surveillance program gives us
    visibility over each of these important health factors.
        We can never forget that we ask our fighting men and women to do so
    in harsh environments, far from home, far from sophisticated health
    care facilities. A healthy, fit warrior is much better able than a
    less-fit person to sustain a significant illness or injury and be
    stabilized for long distance travel.
    Deployment Health Surveillance program
        Our fitness and Deployment Health Surveillance programs complement
    each other. The first provides healthy troops to the fight, the second
    maintains and monitors their health. We are very proud of our
    Deployment Health Surveillance program that has resulted in our lowest
    Disease Non-Battle Injury Rates (DNBI) of all time, about 4 percent
    across the Department of Defense. The Air Force Medical Service
    conducts a variety of activities that ensure comprehensive health
    surveillance for our Total Force Airmen pre-, during, and post-
    deployment, and indeed, throughout their entire careers.
        Annual Preventive Health Assessments ensure each Airman receives
    required clinical preventive services and meets individual medical
    readiness requirements. This data is conducted globally and recorded in
    an AFMS-wide database--therefore, the health of each Airman, whether
    active duty, Guard or Reserve, can be tracked throughout his or her
    service and in any location. This is an invaluable medical readiness
    tool for commanders.
        Pre-deployment medical assessments are performed on every Airman
    who deploys for 30 or more days to overseas locations without a fixed
    medical facility. While deployed, the member is protected by preventive
    medicine teams who identify, assess, control and counter the full
    spectrum of existing health threats and hazards, greatly enhancing our
    ability to prevent illness and injury.
        These Preventive Aerospace Medicine teams, or PAM teams, are our
    unsung heroes. They are small units--usually only three or four
    people--including an aerospace medicine physician, bioenvironmental
    engineer, public health officer and an independent duty medical
    technician. Theirs are among the very first boots on the ground
    whenever we build a base in theater. Before the fence is raised and the
    perimeter secured, these medics are securing the area against
    biological and chemical threats. PAM teams sample and ensure the safety
    of water, food, and housing. They eliminate dangers from disease-
    carrying ticks, fleas, and rodents. Ultimately, they can claim much of
    the credit for the extremely low Disease Non-Battle Injury Rate.
        As our troops redeploy, post-deployment assessments are conducted
    for the majority of Airmen in-theater, just before they return home.
    Commanders ensure that all redeploying Airmen complete post-deployment
    medical processing immediately upon return from deployment, prior to
    release for downtime, leave, or demobilization.
        During this process, each returning individual has a face-to-face
    health assessment with a health care provider. The assessment includes
    discussion of any health concerns raised in the post-deployment
    questionnaire, mental health or psychosocial issues, special
    medications taken during the deployment, and concerns about possible
    environmental or occupational exposures. The health concerns are
    addressed using the appropriate DOD/VA assessment tool such as the
    Post-Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline.
        Since the first of January 2003, we have accomplished 100,000 post-
    deployment assessments for Air Force members, including almost 27,000
    from our Air Reserve Component, or ARC, personnel. Of these
    assessments, we identified approximately 6,500--or 9 percent--active
    duty and about 3,000--or 11 percent--ARC personnel that required a
    follow-up referral. This equates to only 9.5 percent of our returning
    personnel that require follow-up due to deployment-related medical or
    dental health concerns.
        To better ensure early identification and treatment of emerging
    deployment-related health concerns, we are currently working on an
    extension of our post-deployment health assessment program to include a
    re-assessment of general health with a specific emphasis on mental
    health. It will be administered within six months of post-deployment
    using a standard re-assessment process. The re-assessment will be
    completed before the end of 180 days to afford Air Reserve Component
    members the option of treatment using their TRICARE health benefit.
        I am pleased to report that a recent Government Accountability
    Office audit on Deployment Health Surveillance concluded that our
    program had made important improvements and that from 94 percent and 99
    percent of our Airmen were receiving their pre- and post-deployment
    assessments.
        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. The Air Force currently has 49 mental health personnel deployed
    for current operations, 31 of whom are supporting Army or joint service
    requirements. We currently use psychiatric nurses at our aero-medical
    staging facilities to better address emerging psychological issues for
    Airmen being medically evacuated out of the combat theater.
        The Air Force is also in the process of standardizing existing
    redeployment and reintegration programs, which help Airmen and family
    members readjust following deployments. These programs involve
    collaborative arrangements 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-run program that provides personal consultation via the web,
    telephone or in-person contacts. AF OneSource is available 24 hours a
    day, and can be accessed from any location.
        After deployments, psychological care is primarily delivered
    through our Life Skills Support Centers, which deliver care for alcohol
    issues, family violence issues and general mental health concerns.
    Staffing of more than 1,200 professionals includes a mix of active
    duty, civilian and contract personnel who serve as psychiatrists,
    psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses and mental health
    technicians. We currently offer ready access to mental health care in
    both deployed and home-station locations.
        The Air Force also looked at several behavioral indicators from
    fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004 to examine trends before and after
    initiation of OEF and OIF. Child abuse rates were virtually unchanged
    throughout the Air Force over the 5-year span, and spouse-abuse rates
    and alcohol-related incident rates actually declined somewhat over the
    past 5 years. To date, there have been no Air Force suicides in Iraq or
    Afghanistan during OEF and OIF. Since the onset of OEF (Oct. 7, 2001),
    there have been 125 suicides in the Air Force. Only four suicides
    involved personnel who had been previously deployed to Iraq or
    Afghanistan, representing a rate (4.2 per 100,000) much lower than the
    Air Force historical average over the last 8 years (9.7 per 100,000).
    The Air Force Chief of Staff has placed increased emphasis on adherence
    to existing Air Force suicide prevention policies in recent months, and
    the current very low rates so far for this fiscal year (7.1 per 100,000
    as of March 2, 2005) are encouraging.
        Our reviews indicate that deployed Airmen have faced less exposure
    to traumatic stress than their Army and Marine counterparts, and
    therefore have experienced less psychological impact during current
    operations. We must be prepared, however, for this to change. More
    recently, Air Force personnel have been called upon to support convoy
    operations. Additionally, future operations may place additional
    demands upon our Airmen, and we must be ready to respond. Initiatives
    to re-assess the mental health status of our personnel 90-180 days
    post-deployment will allow us to better monitor and address mental
    health needs as they emerge.

                             PREVENTING CASUALTIES

        Today's Global War on Terrorism will be with us for years to come.
    Terrorism confronts us with the prospect of chemical, biological, and
    radiological attacks. Of those, the most disconcerting to me are the
    biological weapons. Nightmare scenarios involving biologicals include
    rapidly spreading illnesses, ones so vicious that if we cannot detect
    and treat the afflicted quickly, there would be an exponential
    onslaught of casualties.
        Just as General Jumper talks about the need for our combatants to
    find, fix, track, target, engage and assess anything on the planet that
    poses a threat to our people--and to do so in near real time--so must
    medics have the capability to find biological threats, and to track,
    target, engage and defeat such dangers; whether they are naturally
    occurring--like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or ARS--or manmade,
    like weaponized smallpox.
        The rapidly advancing fields of biogenetics 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.
    Silent Guardian
        This evolving technology was tested recently in a Deployment Health
    Surveillance exercise in Washington, DC. The test started shortly
    before the inauguration and ended with the close of the State of the
    Union Address. The exercise, codenamed Silent Guardian, involved the
    military medical facilities that ring the National Capital Region. We
    placed teams in each of these facilities to collect samples from
    patients who had fever and flu-like illnesses. The samples were then
    transported to a central lab equipped with small, advanced biological
    identification unit--the ``gene chip'' I mentioned--capable of testing
    for, and recognizing, scores of common or dangerous bacteria and
    viruses. And when I say small, I mean that the gene-reading chip at the
    center of this system is smaller than a fingernail.
        To run this many tests using the technology we normally use today
    would require a large laboratory, two to five weeks, numerous staff,
    and thousands of swabs and cultures dishes. But this new analyzer is
    closer in technology to the hand-held medical tricorder used by Dr.
    McCoy in Star Trek than it is to the swab-culture-wait-grow method
    currently used.
        We knew the test results within 24 hours, not the days or weeks
    required in the past. All results were entered into a web-based program
    that tracks outbreak patterns on a map. Additionally, we had mechanisms
    in place to automatically alert medics and officials of potential
    epidemics or biological attacks.
    Epidemic Outbreak Surveillance
        The systems used in Silent Guardian are a small part of the
    Epidemic Outbreak Surveillance project, or EOS, an Air Force initiative
    that combines existing and emerging biodefense technologies by using a
    ``system of systems'' approach in a rigorous real-world testbed. This
    project is currently in the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
    phase, but we hope to eventually deploy this technology to military
    bases worldwide for near real-time, total visibility of biological
    threats to our troops. These threats are not just those of biological
    warfare, but I want this team to focus on threats to our troops from
    naturally occurring disease outbreaks, from adenovirus to influenza.
    Imagine the power of knowing when and who a disease was stalking!
        When fielded, EOS will integrate advanced diagnostic platforms,
    bio-informatic analysis tools, information technology, advanced
    epidemiology methods, and environmental monitoring. Alone, none of
    these provide a defense against a biological attack, either natural or
    manmade. Woven together, they create a biodefense system that permits
    medics to rapidly identify threats, focus treatment, contain outbreaks,
    and greatly decrease casualties.
        Another exciting advancement we expect to start transitioning this
    year is our technical ability to create an unlimited number of COHORTs
    of each Airman, which will provide occupational and medical
    surveillance from the time he or she joins the Air Force until
    retirement or separation, regardless of where the Airman serves or what
    job he or she performs. 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 be working in near real time, and eventually will be
    automated to work continuously in the background to always be searching
    for key sentinel events.
        Diabetes is another enemy that takes lives, and it too can be
    defeated. We have been collaborating with the University of
    Pennsylvania Medical Center to create Centers of Excellence for
    diabetes care. Diabetes can affect anyone--in or out of uniform--so
    this effort promises to improve the lives of all beneficiaries.
    Together, we are seeking ways to prevent and detect the onset of
    diabetes while providing proven, focused prevention and treatment
    programs to rural communities, minority populations, the elderly and
    other populations prone to this disease.

                                 RESTORE HEALTH

    High Survivability Rate
        We have enjoyed significant success in the third health effect we
    bring to the fight--that of restoring the health of our sick or injured
    warriors. Innovations in both technology and doctrine are dramatically
    improving survival rates of our troops on the battlefield.
        During the American Revolution, a soldier had only a 50/50 chance
    of living if injured on the battlefield. From the Civil War through
    World War II, about 70 percent of the injured survived their injuries.
    Aeromedical evacuation in Vietnam is partly responsible for increasing
    the survival rate to nearly 75 percent. During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM
    (OIF), 90 percent of those injured in combat survived their wounds. We
    attribute this success to the combination of our rapidly deployable
    modular Expeditionary Medical units, excellent joint operations, and
    our transformed aeromedical operations.
    EMEDS
        The Expeditionary Medical Support concept, or EMEDS, has proven
    itself invaluable in OIF. EMEDS is a collection of small, modular
    medical units that have predominantly replaced our large, lumbering
    theater hospitals. Big things come in small packages, and there are at
    least three big benefits to these small EMEDS:
        First, by breaking up our large deployable medical facilities, we
    can spread our resources geographically to locations around the globe
    where they are needed the most; an efficient use of our assets.
        Secondly, EMEDS units are easier to insert far forward and
    integrate with other services, so our medics are closer to the action
    and closer to the wounded who need our lifesaving skills. For example,
    our Aeromedical Evacuation Liaison Teams and aeromedical staging
    facilities were loaded into humvees and provided direct combat service
    support to the Army V Corp and 1st Marine Expeditionary Forces convoys
    as they fought their way along the Tigris and Euphrates from northern
    Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003.
        Finally, these units are small, light, and lean. How small? The
    people and equipment comprising the entire Air Force medical support in
    OIF have taken up less than one percent of the cargo space of all
    assets headed to the war. EMEDS' small footprint allows us to pick them
    up and put them down anywhere quickly. We get to the fight faster. For
    example, in OIF, we opened 24 bases in 12 countries in a matter of
    months, each with a substantial EMEDS presence. That formidable
    presence served not only Air Force troops, but also ground forces
    throughout the region. To further ensure quality care, we deployed
    over-pressurized tents that are capable of keeping biological and
    chemical weapons from seeping into our medical facilities.
        EMEDS' modularity allows its components to be mixed and matched
    effortlessly with other EMEDS units or even another Service's assets to
    create the package of medical care required. Whether it's a small
    clinic or a large 250-bed hospital that does everything short of organ
    transplants, the right level of medical care is prescribed and provided
    to our warriors.
        The speed with which these EMEDS deploy is phenomenal. One of our
    first EMEDS units in theater was a 25-bed hospital based at the Air
    Force Academy in Colorado. The time elapsed from the moment EMEDS
    members got their telephone call notifying them of deployment, gathered
    and transported all 100 medics and their equipment, pitched their tents
    in Oman, and saw their first patient, was just 72 hours. Because of
    this capability, we are the medics of choice for Special Forces and for
    quick-reaction forces in the United States and abroad.
        Less than one month after the September 11th, 2001, attacks, a
    medical team supporting Special Operations saved the life of the first
    soldier severely injured while supporting Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.
    Exactly 3 years later, on September 11th, 2004, Air Force medics
    accomplished the miraculous save of a horribly wounded Airman in
    Baghdad. I will share this story later in my statement. But in between
    and since these two remarkable medical events, there have been volumes
    of compelling stories reflecting the awesome capabilities of the Air
    Force Medical Service and our joint Air Force-Army-Navy medical team as
    we care for our troops.
    Caring for Iraqis
        Not all of our patients are American military members. Throughout
    this conflict, we have treated Iraqi civilians, our Iraqi allies, and
    even the enemy. After Saddam was toppled, we moved hospitals into
    places like Tallil, Baghdad International Airport, and Kirkuk, where we
    continue to treat all those caught in harm's way, whether friend or
    foe.
        To emphasize that point, I have two very compelling stories
    concerning the care we provide Iraqi nationals. The first involves a
    horribly wounded detainee believed to have received his wounds while
    engaged in combat against our troops. He was going to be transferred to
    an Iraqi hospital, but begged to remain with American doctors until his
    wounds were resolved. His words to our Air Force surgeon were, ``If I
    go, I will surely die. I trust only you.''
        This trust and faith in Americans plays a role in my next story,
    too. Air National Guard medics from the EMEDS at Kirkuk treated a group
    of badly injured Iraqis brought into camp by American soldiers. While
    the camp was under mortar fire, our medics worked to save the men. By
    morning, all were stabilized. They were transported to another medical
    facility the following day. Captain Julie Carpenter, a nurse, rode with
    one of the men, and because he was still in pain, she tried to provide
    some comfort. She would look in his eyes or hold his hand because, as
    she said, ``I wanted him to feel he wasn't alone; I imagine it was
    scary for him.''
        She thought little of the incident until days later she learned
    that the thankful families of these injured Iraqis approached American
    troops and provided information that led our troops to the location and
    the capture of Saddam Hussein.
        Expeditionary health care is a military tool that not only saves
    lives; it can turn confrontation into cooperation, revealing compassion
    to be the long arm of diplomacy.
    Expeditionary Health Technology
        Restoring health in the expeditionary environment requires that our
    dedicated medical professionals are equipped with cutting-edge
    technology. For example, we are seeking techniques to convert common
    tap or surface water into safe intravenous (IV) 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 a provider in Iraq to send
    diagnostic images such as X-rays through the Internet back to
    specialists located anywhere in the world, Wilford Hall Medical Center,
    for instance, for a near real-time consult. This insures that each
    Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine in the field has access to one of our
    outstanding specialists almost anytime and anywhere.
    Aeromedical Evacuation
        Restoring health also means bringing casualties back from the front
    as quickly as possible to sophisticated medical care. The Air Force
    Medical Service makes its unique contribution to the Total Force and
    joint environment through our aeromedical mission and the professionals
    who perform it. The job of Aeromedical Evacuation crewmembers is not
    easy. They must perform the same life-saving activities their peers
    accomplish in hospitals, but in the belly of an aircraft at over 20,000
    feet. The conditions are sometimes challenging as crew members work
    under the noise of the engines or when flying through turbulence--but
    there is no place else they would rather be. TSgt Pamela A. Evanosky of
    the 315th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron out of Charleston AFB said,
    ``AE is exhausting duty. But I love it. I know everyday that I make a
    difference. This is the most honorable and rewarding work I could
    possibly ever do.''
        It truly is rewarding, and I am very proud to report, that Sergeant
    Evanosky and her fellow AE crewmembers have accomplished over 55,000
    patient movements since the beginning of OIF, and they have never lost
    a patient.
    Critical Care Air Transport Teams
        Occasionally, our AE crews transport a patient who is 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 retrieve the most seriously injured
    troops. Team members carry special gear that can turn almost any
    airframe into a flying intensive care unit (or ICU) 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 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 discussion of aeromedical evacuation is complete without
    recognizing the critical contribution of the Reserve Component. About
    88 percent of AF Aeromedical Evacuation capability is with the Guard
    and Reserve. I am deeply proud of and awed by their dedication and
    self-sacrifice in delivering sick and often critically injured troops
    from the battlefront into the care of their families and our medics at
    the home front.
    The Miracle of Modern Expeditionary Medicine
        The seamless health care we provide with our Sister Services from
    battlefield to home station can be illustrated by the miraculous, life-
    saving story of Senior Airman Brian Kolfage.
        Airman Kolfage suffered horrendous wounds when an enemy mortar
    landed near him. These mortars have a kill radius of 150 feet. Kolfage
    was about 10 feet away. The blast threw him half the length of a
    football field. It shredded both legs and his right arm. Normally, no
    one could survive such an injury, but an Air Force medic who was close
    by when the blast occurred was able to respond immediately.
        The field surgeons had Airman Kolfage on the operating table in
    five minutes and were able to stabilize him. Aeromedical Evacuation
    crews and CCATT teams transported him halfway around the world to
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
        Senior Airman Kolfage was airlifted from the site of injury over
    6,000 miles away to a hospital just 6 miles from where we now sit. And
    this all happened in a time span of just 36 hours. That is something
    that could not have happened in previous conflicts.
        Airman Kolfage lost both legs and his right hand. But he has
    definitely not lost his spirit. He arrived at Walter Reed flat on his
    back, but vows to walk out of there. I believe him. He takes vows
    seriously. As a matter of fact, he just exchanged them with his
    girlfriend--now wife--whom he recently married at Walter Reed.
        This is a miracle of modern technology, seamless joint medical
    operations, and the resiliency of youth. In any other war, this young
    man would have lost his life; now he has it all before him.
        Every day the Air Force Medical Service sees thousands of patients.
    We try to make a difference with each individual; in Airman Kolfage's
    case, we know for sure we made the ultimate difference.

                           ENHANCE HUMAN PERFORMANCE

        The fourth health effect we contribute to warfighting is the
    enhancement of human performance. Helping Airmen perform to the best of
    their abilities means we must have people who are highly trained,
    competent, and equipped with advanced technology that can both help
    them do their jobs and protect them while doing so. We are seeking to
    enhance human performance for our troops through cutting-edge research
    and development that will improve the safety and performance of our
    troops in the expeditionary Air Force.
        For example, we continue to pursue methods of enhancing our
    member's eyesight. Obviously, good vision has always been important to
    our troops, particularly pilots whose eyes may be their navigators. But
    detecting and protecting our troops' eyesight is especially critical
    now that Directed Energy Weapons, or Lasers, are widely available and
    capable of inflicting great injury to the eye.
        A laser pointed into an eye can temporarily or even permanently
    damage an Airman's vision, so we seek special lenses for eyewear and
    helmet shields that can block harmful laser rays. Detecting laser eye
    injuries can be difficult; treating such injuries is currently next to
    impossible. Consequently, we are fielding retinal surveillance units in
    high-threat areas to accomplish eye exams, always looking for evidence
    of laser damage. We are searching for valid therapies to treat these
    types of newly recognized injury patterns. No such therapy currently
    exists.
        Finally, we'll push the envelope on ocular technologies by trying
    to create vision devices that will allow our Airmen to see to the
    theoretical limit of the human eye, which some say is 20-over-8. If
    successful, this will provide our pilots and warriors the ability to
    see twice as far as an adversary.
    The Changing AFMS Construct
        The AFMS faces the challenge of delivering these four health
    effects in times of significant change in the two constructs in which
    we operate; that of medicine and of military operations planning--how
    we fight wars.
    Changes in Health Care
        Health care has changed radically in the past 15 years. In my
    tenure as a physician, advances in pharmaceuticals, diagnostics--like
    the CAT scan and MRI-fiber optic techniques such as laparoscopy,
    arthroscopy, and the use of stints for blocked arteries, and anesthesia
    breakthroughs have radically altered our military treatment facilities.
    In the private sector, small, full-service hospitals have gone the way
    of the eight-track tape, replaced by more efficient medical complexes
    that focus on outpatient care and ambulatory surgery.
        The same pressures that prompted civilian health care facilities to
    move to outpatient surgery have influenced transitions in the Air Force
    delivery of health care as well. Historically, we structured ourselves
    to have hospitals at most bases. We now have substantially transitioned
    our facilities to the point where fewer than 30 percent of our bases
    have hospitals. In fact, if you look today, we have fewer hospital beds
    in the entire Air Force, 740, than existed at the Air Force's Wilford
    Hall Medical Center in 1990, which had 855.
        Another important way the military has adapted to the changing
    health care construct is to operate much more closely with sister
    service and civilian hospitals to provide comprehensive patient care.
    For instance, the Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany--the first
    stop for many of our wounded returning from Afghanistan and Iraq--has a
    contingency of almost 300 permanent-party Airmen working side-by-side
    with their nearly 900 Army counterparts.
        We enjoy a similar sharing opportunity with the University of
    Colorado at Denver. Most of nearby Buckley Air Force Base's patient
    care assets are now located at the University's Fitzsimmons medical
    campus. Our close working relationship with the university hospital and
    its president, Dennis Brimhall, are responsible for the efficient and
    innovative use of medical resources and quality care for our
    beneficiaries.
        Strong relationships with civilian agencies--like that of our
    Center for Sustainment of Trauma And Readiness Skills, or C-STARS
    program--have benefited both our peacetime TRICARE and wartime AEF
    missions. The Air Force has three of these centers, one each in the
    Cincinnati University Hospital Trauma Center in Ohio, Saint Louis
    University Hospital in Missouri, and the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma
    Center in Baltimore. Military medics work in tandem with their civilian
    counterparts there to care for seriously ill or traumatically injured
    patients, patients seldom seen in military MTFs. These programs prepare
    our providers for deployment by exposing them to the wounds they will
    treat in combat. In the future, we will be looking for new ways to
    partner with these civilian institutions, such as in education and
    research and development.
    Changes in War-Fighting
        The second construct change is that of the Air Force mission
    itself. When I entered the Air Force in the late 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.
        The Air Force created its Air Expeditionary Force structure, 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. This has driven three additional
    changes to our medical system. Our people must be trained, current, and
    extractable to support the warfighter. 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 must 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 is exactly the challenge that the Air Force Chief of Staff
    Gen. John P. Jumper issued to me in creating expeditionary medics:
    medics who are focused on developing the skills for the field and eager
    to deploy for four of every 20 months.
        We are assigning 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 stations. We are also reviewing the
    ratio of active-to-reserve medics and asking ourselves important
    questions: What mix of the active duty to reserve component will ensure
    the best balance between the ability to deploy quickly and the
    capability to surge forces when necessary?
        Finally, we are 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.
    TRICARE
        The next generation of TRICARE contracts is now completely
    deployed. The transition was smoother than that experienced in the last
    contract transition in the 1990s. Service contracts are now in place to
    fully support the benefit enhancements to our active and reserve forces
    that were temporary in 2004, but made permanent by the fiscal year 2005
    National Defense Authorization Act. Although we experienced some
    challenges with referral management, both the government and our
    contractors are working to find solutions and we have seen improvement
    over the past several months. We will continue to work this issue
    aggressively as access both in the direct care system as well as the
    network continues to be closely monitored.
        The TRICARE benefit is generous, and many retirees who have the
    choice between our care and that offered by their civilian insurers are
    opting for the military's medical system. In spite of the increase in
    benefits and the ever-growing population to whom it is delivered, the
    TRICARE system continues to receive satisfaction ratings superior to
    that of civilian health care systems.
    Working with the Department of Veterans Affairs
        Our concern about the care of our beneficiaries continues even
    after they have left the DOD system; therefore, the DOD/VA Resource
    Sharing Program continues to be a high priority for the Air Force
    Medical Service. The new Health Executive Council is making promising
    steps toward removing barriers that impede our collaborative efforts.
    We constantly explore new areas in which we can work to jointly benefit
    our patients and are currently finding these opportunities in
    information technology, deployment health medicine, pharmacy, and
    contingency response planning and patient safety programs. We are
    particularly proud of progress toward improving transitional services
    and the delivery of the benefit to our separating service members.
    These combined, cooperative efforts are a win-win-win for United
    States, the VA, and most importantly, our beneficiaries. Of course, I
    remain very proud of our numerous joint VA-Air Force operations, from
    Anchorage to Las Vegas, from Albuquerque to Travis Air Force Base
    California, we continue to team well with the VA.
    Recruiting and Retention
        The AFMS continues to face significant challenges in the
    recruitment and retention of 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 do help, and I thank you for supporting such
    programs. Nearly 85 percent of nurses entering the Air Force say they
    joined in large part because of these incentives.
        We also recognize the importance of maintaining a modern and
    effective infrastructure in our military treatment facilities, from
    clinics to medical centers. The atmosphere in which our medics work is
    as important as any other retention factor. We have wonderful patients,
    patriotic and willing to sacrifice. They deserve not only the most
    brilliant medical and dental minds, but first class equipment and
    facilities. Every day, I strive to make that happen.
    Conclusion
        The Air Force Medical Service is proud to be part of a joint
    medical team that provides seamless care to America's heroes, no matter
    what Service they are from. We can boast of a full-spectrum, effects-
    based health care system. Our focus on a fit and healthy force coupled
    with human performance enhancement strategies and technologies,
    promotes maximum capability for our Total Force warriors. Our health
    surveillance programs keep them and their units healthy day to day,
    ready to take on the next challenge. When one of our warriors is ill or
    injured, we respond rapidly through a seamless system from initial
    field response, to stabilization care at our expeditionary surgical
    units and theater hospital, to in-the-air critical care in the
    aeromedical evacuation system, and ultimately home to a military or VA
    medical treatment facility. Across service lines, at every step, we are
    confident that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines--active duty,
    Guard and Reserve--are receiving the high level of medical care they
    deserve, from foxhole to home station.
        As we work to improve upon this solid foundation, the men and women
    of the Air Force Medical Service, at home or deployed, remain committed
    to caring for our troops. We appreciate your support as we build to the
    next level of medical capability.
        Thank you.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        We have had enormous response as a volunteer military in
    terms of those people who have been coming in, particularly the
    younger people. What success have you had in terms of
    increasing enlistment of medical professionals and retaining
    them after they come in? For instance, are our bonuses and
    other initiatives giving you good enough tools to assure a
    sufficient number of reenlistments? No one is really talking
    about this so far as I can see. But it has got to be different
    now than it was back in the days of the draft. How are you
    doing in terms of recruitment and retention? General Kiley.

                 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        General Kiley. Sir, thank you for the question. I think
    there are two parts to it. Our enlisted combat medic recruiting
    and retention appears to be going pretty well. As you know, our
    combat medics are emergency medical technician-basic (EMT-B)
    certified, and that seems to have been a draw for many young
    men and women to get the opportunity to get that certification.
        The area we are concerned with, which I think you are also
    asking about, is the area of our professional officer corps,
    recruiting and retaining them, both physicians and nurses. We
    are still short, in terms of our authorizations, against what
    we have on hand for both corps. Specifically, we project this
    year to be close to 200 nurses short in terms of our total end
    strength.
        Senator Stevens. What about doctors, physicians?
        General Kiley. Sir, we are probably close to that same
    number short in physicians. The dynamics are slightly different
    for the two corps. I think Colonel Bruno will tell you that
    there is a nationwide shortage of nurses and nursing starts in
    terms of young men and women who would like to go into nursing
    as a profession, a lot more that would like to than can get
    into school. That is one problem.
        We have not offered, until recently, the same level of
    scholarship opportunities that we are offering now, and we are
    starting to get some interest in scholarships in nursing school
    and also in ROTC.
        We have had some difficulty in retaining nurses. This is
    for the same reasons as we have with physicians. This is hard
    duty and deployment for 1 year. It is relatively new, even
    though we have been in the global war on terrorism since 9/11.
    For some, the potential for repetitive deployments has been a
    little bit of an issue.
        I am encouraged. We are taking some steps recently to
    increase bonuses and to look at other opportunities to get
    nurses on board.
        For physicians, recently the Congress increased the
    ceilings on retention bonuses for physicians. We have not fully
    funded those inside the services to the maximum for all
    physicians. There has been an effort between the three services
    to balance the amount of bonuses per specialty, focusing on
    combat-relevant specialists. I think the personnel tempo
    (PERSTEMPO), the deployment tempo, the long deployments have
    also been a challenge for some of our physicians also. About
    half of the physicians in our Army that are not in training as
    interns and residents have had at least one deployment, and
    many are on the second deployment. We have got some of our
    general surgeons that are on a third deployment now between the
    Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq operations.
        I think it is a little too early to tell in terms of long-
    term retention for physicians what the personnel tempo of the
    physicians in terms of deployments and redeployments will be on
    retention. I am still encouraged. I just talked to a young
    physician the other day who took great pride in the fact that
    he spent 1 year with combat troops in Iraq and is now back in a
    training position, training the next generation of physicians.
    We have increased the bonuses and we continue to work that.
        We are also working to get clearer data which, believe it
    or not, tells us each physician, as they arrive at a point
    where they can actually make the decision do I get out or do I
    sign up for another bonus. We do not actually know the numbers.
    We have got a fair number of continuation data, how many
    doctors continue to stay on, and those numbers look relatively
    good. But I am authorized to 43-47 I believe, and I am at about
    41-50, plus or minus. The cycle changes. Over the summer we
    lose and gain, and then in the fall we lose and gain again.
        So I am concerned. I think we have been at our global war
    on terrorism and this deployment challenge for physicians and
    nurses long enough that those that have had bonuses that they
    are letting run out are now at the point where they are
    starting to let them run out.
        Our certified nurse anesthetists. We increased the bonuses
    for certified nurse anesthetist recognizing that we had a real
    retention problem. And the preliminary indications are that
    they have responded to those increased bonuses and that we have
    signed up a fairly large number of our critical nurse
    anesthetists.
        So it is a mixed picture right now. We are watching it
    pretty carefully. We have got a whole host of new plans and
    programs working with our recruiting command getting physicians
    and nurses engaged in going to facilities and talking to
    doctors and medical students as a way to bring them on board.
    So I think we do not have the final answer yet, but I remain
    concerned about that.
        Senator Stevens. You mentioned homeland security. Are you
    prepared to take on the problems of homeland security through
    your Reserve and Guard? Do you have enough medical people in
    those areas?
        General Kiley. Well, that also is an area of concern. As
    you know, we have a policy now, a 90-day boots on the ground,
    for physicians and dentists, so that they can preserve their
    private practices. I do think it is a challenge for the
    Reserves. The nature of health care in the private sector is
    such that physicians cannot afford in their practices to leave
    for 6 months or 1 year, and so they are very reluctant to sign
    up.
        We do watch the numbers very closely, and depending on the
    nature of the mission, we may be stretched very thin using
    medical reserves to support significant homeland defense
    operations. I do not have any more specific answer to that
    question. I know it is a concern for us.
        Senator Stevens. Do you have any comment on those
    questions, Admiral?

                           RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think that was a
    very good, comprehensive answer, and I echo many of those
    sentiments. I would like to add just a couple of other things.
        I think there is a tremendous value to having an all-
    volunteer service. I have talked with many veterans whose sons
    have died in combat, and one of the things they tell me is they
    are very proud of their son, that he--and in some cases a she,
    but not for us in the Navy--volunteered to go there, wanted to
    serve his country, and that he felt that he died in an
    honorable way. I do not think that that same sentiment is
    echoed for people who are conscripted to service.
        One of the great things, I think, about our medical system
    is the camaraderie that we have with other health care
    professionals who share the same core values that we have, the
    great training that we give, but the greatest benefit that I
    have seen is that we never ask any of our patients how sick
    they can afford to be. We give the right care every single
    time. I think it is those things that keep people in the Navy,
    the Army, the Air Force medical systems because it is a job
    satisfaction not only their professional lives, but they feel
    that they are not just not successful, but significant in their
    contributions to their Nation. So I think the voluntary service
    is of great value.
        Like the Army, we have difficulty in retaining those
    specialties who tend to have more deployments than others: the
    surgeons, the nurse anesthetists, the perioperative nurses, the
    combat medic equivalents in the Navy. But I think so far we are
    doing pretty well because people want to serve, and that is the
    volunteer aspect.
        I have gone over there in December and January and talked
    to thousands of our medical department folks out there. They
    all would like to be home, but when their time and their duty
    is done. They know what they are doing over there is important.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. General Taylor.
        General Taylor. Sir, just a couple of points. From the
    Active duty side, we continue to be challenged in the Dental
    Corps and the Nurse Corps with sustaining the right number of
    folks. I believe we have most of the tools to shape the force
    properly and build the force properly. It is just putting these
    things in effect takes time. A lot of the cycling, particularly
    for the nurses, is in relation to the outside communities'
    shortage of nurses and the capability of nurses. So we are in
    competition for many of these and it makes it more difficult. I
    am sure that General Brannon will come in behind and talk about
    some of the efforts in pay, ROTC, and other activities that we
    are trying to do to recruit and retain nurses.
        I have to say one of the things that we have worked real
    hard on is placing our medics in an air expeditionary force
    structure so that they go out 120 days every 20 months. It is a
    system that can sustain itself. It is very enthralling to talk
    to medics, either in Iraq or Afghanistan or upon return, and
    how excited they are being able to participate in the
    activities and supporting the armed forces forward. This
    experience of deploying forward for most of our medics is a
    very important part of their life and their contribution to the
    service.
        From the Medical Corps perspective, we tend to be
    challenged in certain specialty types. We are working to adjust
    that specialty mix, but by and large, you know that most of the
    Medical Corps we get are through two very wonderful programs.
    The Uniformed Services University and our Health Services
    Professional Scholarship program continue to provide
    outstanding physicians for each of us in the services.
        From the Reserve component perspective, the Air National
    Guard is taking up the challenge of homeland security. Their
    greatest challenge, as they reform the Air National Guard to
    create military medical capabilities aligned along the FEMA
    regions, is getting the equipment, getting the training, and
    then getting the staff aboard to move into creating the
    capabilities to provide rapid medical response to a homeland
    security event. So I am working very hard with the Guard to try
    and help them restructure their medics in a way that provides
    not only capability for the Federal forces, as we deploy out,
    but provide a wonderful asset for the States and the Governors
    to use in case of a homeland security strike.
        Senator Stevens. We were disturbed when we heard that the
    Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) might
    be closed and equally disturbed when we heard that Walter Reed
    might be closed. We are monitoring both of those rumors.
        But one thing that disturbs me is the feeling that there
    just are not enough physicians, doctors, professionals who are
    willing to volunteer and stay in the service. Many of those in
    your profession have received substantial Federal assistance in
    their education. We used to have a requirement if the person
    got such assistance, a certain amount of time had to be
    dedicated to service in the military. That has been eliminated
    from our laws. What would you think about reinstating it? Is it
    still there? I do not think it is still there. Well, I will ask
    the staff.
        My information from home is we used to have a provision
    that said that they had to spend some time in places where
    there were not enough physicians in the civilian community, and
    that was one of the commitments that they made if they got
    their financial assistance during their medical education. But
    I do not think we still have the requirement of military
    service for those who have the assistance.
        General Taylor. Sir, as far as I understand it, in the
    Health Professions Scholarship program (HPSP), you owe 1 year
    for every year of training, and for those who go to the
    Uniformed Services University, they owe 7 years after their
    training.
        Senator Stevens. But is that military service?
        General Taylor. Military service.
        Senator Stevens. All right. We will get a report on that.
    Thank you.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. If I may follow up on that, is it not true
    that of the 3,600 graduates of USUHS, the retention rate is
    extraordinary? For example, the medium length of unobligated
    retention for physician specialists, not including USUHS grads,
    I believe is 2.9 years, but for USUHS grads, the unobligated
    service retention is about 9 years. Is that not correct?
        General Taylor. Senator, I do not think we know the
    specific numbers there. It is true it is universally understood
    that those who attend USUHS, because of their long commitment,
    stay longer in the service. You must complete USUHS, complete
    your medical residency training, and then the clock starts
    ticking on your 7 years of service. Certainly that is longer
    than the HPSP where they only owe 4 years. So it is true that
    they will stay longer.
        Senator Inouye. I am told that beyond the unobligated,
    there are 9 years for USUHS grads, medium rate.
        And further, we have been advised that if we compare USUHS
    to the four major physician accession centers, USUHS is cost
    effective. It sounds astounding, but I suppose it is correct.
        Does Walter Reed still maintain 40 medical specialty
    programs?
        General Kiley. To the best of my knowledge, yes, Senator,
    they do.
        Senator Inouye. Because I have been told that that is one
    of the major attractions for physicians in the military.

                               TRAINING PROGRAMS

        General Kiley. Yes, sir. What Walter Reed really is is the
    linchpin for Army medicine. There are very robust training
    programs across the entire spectrum, many of which are combined
    with training programs at the National Naval Medical Center.
    Many students in medical school that get an opportunity to
    rotate at Walter Reed really get excited about being in Army
    medicine and having an opportunity to serve at Walter Reed.
    Some of our best, not all, physicians in the military will
    actively seek to be assigned at Walter Reed because of its
    prestige, not only its location in Washington, DC, but the
    prestige of the research that goes on, the robustness and the
    size of the training programs that allow them to do research to
    train the next generation of physicians and certainly nurse and
    also enlisted personnel, all of whom train at Walter Reed.
        It is a very big, complex organization. It delivers very
    sophisticated tertiary level, university, academic level health
    care. And as you know, it is also our major receiving facility
    in the continental United States for combat casualties that are
    coming back where we apply those skills.
        So it has a recruiting and retention capability. It is
    recognized worldwide as are the prestigious Navy and Air Force
    facilities. So it is not without significance as it relates to
    not only that, but longevity, the same discussion you just had
    with continuation rates of physicians. Certainly many of the
    USUHS grads get an opportunity to rotate as medical students,
    like my daughter, and see that as a career potential for them.
    So there are significant second and third order effects to this
    facility, yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral Arthur, during the ancient war, the
    one that the chairman and I were involved in--there was much
    talk about what we called section 8, mental cases. In this war
    we see pictures of amputees and blinded veterans and such, but
    very seldom hear about so-called section 8. What is their
    status? Do we have a lot?

                                 COMBAT STRESS

        Admiral Arthur. Section 8 is the psychiatric. Okay. I think
    that is an Army term.
        We are, I think, just seeing the results of combat stress
    in our veterans. I think we have not truly had a major combat
    that our Nation's armed forces have been associated with since
    Vietnam. I think Desert Storm, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama--we have
    been in conflict, but not in such a sustained way.
        Having been in combat, I feel that 100 percent of the
    people who experience combat are in some way affected, some a
    little, some a lot more. I think we as the services need to be
    very sensitive to picking up the combat stress not because the
    children are affected or the spouses are affected or the jobs
    are affected, but because we are sensitive enough in our post-
    deployment screening tools to see the effect and to treat it at
    its lowest level, by that I mean in garrison rather than
    sending someone to a hospital, if they go to a hospital to do
    the treatment as a outpatient rather than an inpatient and to
    return people to function.
        I think one of the best things that all three services have
    done is to enlist their retirees and other people in the
    communities so that we do not lose track of anyone who does not
    just return to garrison, but actually gets out of the service
    or goes back to Reserve duty and may not have the support that
    an Active duty member has. I think we are all very, very
    concerned about what I would call combat stress to ensure that
    we properly honor the services of the veterans and understand
    it.
        As I said in my opening statement, I think this is in the
    purview of the military. We know what combat stress is about
    because we have been there and we understand it. I think the
    more we can do that keeps our veterans from having to go to
    civilian centers where they are not as well prepared the better
    we will be, and that includes our Veterans Administration
    hospitals as we partner with them to treat veterans.
        Senator Inouye. Do you believe that we are adequately
    demonstrating this concern and sensitivity?
        Admiral Arthur. I believe that we adequately have attention
    being drawn to it. I think renewed collaboration that DOD has
    with the Veterans Administration in treating combat stress is
    refreshing. We have a lot of programs and I am encouraged by
    the amount of effort and attention that we are bringing to bear
    on this, all three services, right now.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        General Taylor, we have just received a report that the Air
    Force is short in a large array of medical and dental fields.
    For example, the Air Force is now short in dentistry,
    anesthesiology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonary,
    cardiology, oncology, hematology, internal medicine, and it
    goes on and on. Is that a correct picture?
        General Taylor. Sir, we are short in certain areas. We are
    shorter in other areas than in some other ones. The way we have
    tried to adjust for that, of course, is to work on the pay and
    compensation for those specialties that are in the career
    field. We have been working actively with the recruiting
    services to recruit people, and then we have continued to work
    hard to mold new accessions into those specialty areas.
        Some of the ways that we have adjusted to that is to try
    and ensure that we place our military specialists in those
    locations where they can best maintain their skills.
    Concentrating internists in hospitals and moving them from the
    smaller clinics and into the hospitals has been one way to
    adjust for that. That would allow those small clinics then to
    contract for internal medicine referrals locally rather than to
    put a military internist in a small clinic forward.
        So most of these are trying to adjust to the correct size
    while we continue to press for new entries into the career
    field and that the pay and incentives remain intact. The other
    part of this is to try and ensure that people in those areas of
    expertise are practicing the full spectrum of their health care
    in our larger facilities.
        Senator Inouye. Are you noting success in your programs?
        General Taylor. Sir, I believe we are seeing success in
    that program. It is going to take time, as was mentioned by my
    colleagues here, to see how those incentives work. We
    appreciate what Congress has given us in terms of pay and
    retention and scholarship programs to recruit and retain these
    people, and we believe we have the adequate tools to do the
    work.
        Senator Inouye. Well, as one Member of the Congress, I
    would like to thank all of you for your service. Thank you very
    much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
    our Surgeons General.
        First of all, as the Senator from Maryland, we are very
    familiar with military medicine in our State and so honored to
    have Naval Bethesda in our State. Walter Reed, though next
    door, we view as part of--we do not want to say part of our
    State, but certainly close to that. The hospital ship Comfort
    is based in Baltimore, and of course, we have USUHS, the
    uniformed services medical school, and up Route 270, of course,
    is Fort Detrick, though not literally under your command,
    certainly is coming up with the research that is so important
    in what you are doing. So we feel very strong about it.
        We too are really proud of what you are doing in
    battlefield medicine, acute care, and also the primary care
    that you provide to families. So we are on your side, and even
    my own primary care physician gave me an article from the
    Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), the American
    medical journal, talking about the stunning results in what you
    have been able to do in battlefield medicine. It is beyond all
    expectation and all hope. I know gratitude will come to you the
    rest of your life in this.
        I am worried about the shortages that you are talking about
    with the physicians, and I too have been troubled about the
    rumored closing of both USUHS and Walter Reed.
        In terms of USUHS, I would like to be able to ask you,
    General Kiley, a couple of questions. First of all, is it true,
    picking up on Senators Stevens and Inouye, that the USUHS
    graduate serves a longer time than someone who has come through
    a conventional medical school, and could you share with us how
    committed they stay? All medicine is 24/7, but military
    medicine is 36/7. You work a 36-hour day.
        General Kiley. Senator, that is a great question. Thank
    you.

                       PROGRAMS FOR ASSESSING PHYSICIANS

        I think as General Taylor referenced, there are two general
    programs for assessing physicians, and the Uniformed Services
    University has the students go through an Active duty status
    with pay allowances and privileges. In exchange for those 4
    years as a medical student, the young doctors graduate and are
    commissioned as Medical Corps captains. And then they have a 7-
    year obligation. The internship year right after medical school
    or, in many cases now, just the residency, internal medicine
    being 3, general surgery being 5 years, OB-GYN being 4 years,
    as an example--those 3, 4, or 5 years do not count in working
    off the obligation.
        Senator Mikulski. So they do not count toward the 7 years.
        General Kiley. That is correct. But they do count toward
    retirement. So these young physicians get through their
    training, and then they have a 7-year commitment. The intent,
    as I understand it, was pretty clear. I hear this routinely
    from my daughter, who is a USUHS graduate and finishing her
    second year of medicine residency, that they will get out to
    10, 11, 12, 13 years before they reach that first unobligated
    decision point. Many of them--and I cannot give you a number,
    but clearly early on and so some of the more senior
    physicians--many had prior service. So they already had some
    commitment into retirement.
        Senator Mikulski. But the bottom line is do they serve
    longer? Do you know that?
        General Kiley. Our best estimate is yes, Senator, they seem
    to because the HPSPers--the larger group, by the way, at least
    for the Army--we get 60 doctors every year from the Uniformed
    Services. We get between 250 to----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I am not saying it is not a
    substitute for----
        General Kiley. No, ma'am. I understand.
        Senator Mikulski. So, in other words, USUHS--the Naval
    Academy does not do all of the officer corps for the Navy.
        General Kiley. But if you are a West Point graduate with a
    5-year obligation from West Point and you are a USUHS graduate
    with a 7-year obligation, those two are additive. So you are
    close to retirement before you can even decide----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but you might not be coming from
    West Point.
        General Kiley. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. You might be coming a different route.
        General Kiley. But the HPSPers--those only owe 4 years.
    They only owe 4 if they do a full 4-year scholarship.
        Senator Mikulski. So the HPSP is the scholarship program.
    Is that correct?
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Now, in terms of the scholarship program,
    as I understand it, last year you had less than one applicant
    per slot, while USUHS had 10 initial applicants for every slot
    getting into USUHS. Are you aware of that?
        General Kiley. I do not believe that the number was less
    than one applicant per slot. I believe it was about 1.1 to 1.2
    applicants per slot, which is down from what it used to be.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but that is not a lot.
        General Kiley. No, ma'am, it is not.
        Senator Mikulski. That is not a lot. And when you think
    that there are 10 people lining up to get into one slot in
    USUHS and we are talking about closing it, but it is barely one
    on one for the DOD HSP program, then I think we need to
    evaluate the scholarship program and find out why. But it is
    also a lesson saying let us not close USUHS.
        Now, we understand the military doctors are a military
    doctor rather than a doctor who is currently in the military.
        But as I understand it, first of all, you have got about
    1,000 vacant physician positions, and not only are you
    competing with those at Hopkins or Mercy, like in our own
    State, Suburban, which you just referenced, Admiral, but you
    are also competing with the VA. The VA can pay more than the
    military. Am I correct?
        General Kiley. I believe they can, yes, ma'am, at least in
    some specialties.

                              SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

        Senator Mikulski. Well, see, I think these are the issues
    that we need to look at, and they would not be necessarily the
    scope of this hearing. But I think we do need to look at the
    scholarship program.
        Senator Stevens. Would you say that again, Senator?
        Senator Mikulski. Well, today the Department of VA, as I
    understand it from my old work on the VA Subcommittee before we
    were reorganized, sir, can pay its civilian physicians more
    than DOD can under title 38. Therefore, not only are you
    competing with academic centers of excellence and community-
    based medicine, but you are also competing even against the VA
    in many of the same geographic areas where people are serving.
    Again, I come back to military medicine being a 36/7 calling.
        So we do not want to short change the VA exactly because
    this seamless transition that you are developing and we are so
    enthusiastic about, but at the same time, if you are trying to
    get a surgeon, these specialties, but even in the primary care
    area, this would seem to be a challenge. And also VA is
    offering scholarships in nursing, scholarships in medicine and
    so on. So I think we need to look at this and how you are going
    to be competitive.
        My advice is that we should not close USUHS because USUHS
    might bring not only medical skill but a military culture as
    compared to simply training a doctor to be in the military. I
    think the military doctor has an influence on the doctor in the
    military to grasp this very unique culture that you are the
    leaders of.
        Do you see where I am? So I think we need to look at that.
        I would also think that we should look at perhaps debt
    reduction. When someone has completed their medical school,
    their debt in many instances is over $100,000. It is
    breathtaking for some. Then they think, I want a different life
    here and they are ready to think about this perhaps, but we
    should think about forgiving their debt as they entered the
    military. We already know then they have gotten through medical
    school. So it is not a crap shoot to know if they are going to
    make it. So I think we need some new thinking. Have you thought
    about this?
        Senator Stevens. That is a good idea. We ought to all think
    about that, Senator. That is a very good idea.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. And then when they come in,
    essentially we swap debt for duty.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        General Taylor. Yes, ma'am. We do have certain tools that
    fit that category. The question is whether we are effectively
    using them or do we have the wide range of authority to fully
    execute those. We do have some debt relief tools. We do have
    some recruiting tools, and I think it is a very good question
    as to whether we are effectively using them or we are limited
    in size and scope because of finances or congressional caps. I
    think it is worthy for us to look at it.
        General Kiley. I think you hit on it, $100,000 in debt. If
    you are coming out of Georgetown or George Washington (GW), you
    may be closer to $200,000 in debt based on the estimates of the
    cost. These young physicians then look at an Army salary with
    this debt on them, and it is very hard. Every year we have a
    couple physicians that come on Active duty, having incurred an
    obligation in ROTC in undergraduate, who have those kind of
    debts. They can sometimes struggle.
        We do have some programs that recognize some of that debt
    reduction, but the programs are not nearly robust enough to
    address some of the issues you have had.
        The second piece about the VA receiving more. One of the
    things the VA physicians, as I understand it, have as part of
    their retirement package is that these bonuses that they are
    given as physicians in the VA are all calculated into their
    retirement pay. They are not calculated into the military
    retirement pay.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think we need to then look at how
    the VA is doing it and perhaps some lessons learned.
        But the point of debt forgiveness is that perhaps when
    someone has completed their internship, they have got all this
    debt, this could be another recruitment time, or even when they
    have completed their residency. Some young people do not now
    want the hassle, the malpractice issues and the health
    maintenance organization (HMO), the insurance stuff, and the
    idea of being in the military would be very attractive to them.
        I know my time is up, but I am very keen on this
    recruitment and retention.
        Senator Stevens. I want to ask the three witnesses here if
    they will confer and give us a suggestion on how to flesh out
    the Mikulski plan. We have several provisions in Federal law
    that it is really payment rather than forgiveness because those
    loans are not made by the Federal Government primarily. I think
    they are mostly reinsured by the Federal Government. But I do
    think that you ought to give us a plan that would allow the
    services to entice young doctors and professionals to come into
    the services with an addition to their salary to repay those
    loans.

                      MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS LOAN REPAYMENT

        We do that here in the Senate to a certain extent. I do not
    know if you know that. It is not very much. We give the
    authority to a Senator to add to the salary an incentive
    payment for retention of employees who do have these debts. I
    have seen them come to my office with more than $100,000 and
    the lawyers coming in with almost $200,000.
        So I think this is probably one of the things that is a
    deterrent to enter Government service, and particularly
    military medical service. You ought to give us a plan. We will
    flesh it out and see if we cannot get the money for it this
    year.
        Senator Mikulski. Very good.
        Senator Stevens. We will call it the Mikulski plan.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.
        Senator Stevens. Well, Sonny Montgomery had his plan. You
    have got yours.
        Senator Mikulski. Sounds good to me.
        [The information follows:]

                      Medical Professionals Loan Repayment

        The Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) has
    been a very important accession and retention tool to the Air
    Force Medical Service in certain areas. During the four year
    history of the current program, it has helped sustain the Nurse
    Corps Accession program, accounting for nearly half of the
    Nurse Corps accessions. It has also helped the Air Force Dental
    Corps to slightly improve the retention of general dentists
    (non-residency trained). Although HPLRP has been successful in
    some of our accession and retention endeavors, there is a low
    rate of HPLRP takers among physicians and residency-trained
    dentists.
        Physicians, dentists, and certain Biomedical Sciences Corps
    specialists tend to have larger debt burdens than other health
    professionals and, due to salary differences, have a greater
    potential for quickly paying off these loans working in the
    civilian sector versus the military. Physician and dental
    officer average debt load is $100,000-$120,000 with some even
    approaching $350,000. Health professionals have cited high
    student debt load as a major factor in their decision to
    separate from the Air Force.
        A few recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the
    health professions loan repayment program are: (1) make HPLRP
    tax free, perhaps mirroring the Indian Health Service Loan
    Repayment Program; (2) allow HPLRP service obligation to run
    concurrent with any other service obligation; (3) receive HPLRP
    appropriation to provide adequate quotas to improve the current
    program; and (4) establish an adequate accession bonus for
    physicians and dentists to augment the HPLRP as a more
    attractive accession tool. These improvements would help the
    military services attract and retain fully qualified health
    professionals especially in those extremely hard to recruit
    specialties.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We
    appreciate very much your service and your testimony here
    today. We look forward to hearing from you further about this
    idea, and I think it is a good one to pursue.
        We will now turn to the Nurse Corps. Thank you again for
    coming.
        We are now going to hear from the nursing corps. This
    subcommittee's view is that the nursing corps are vital to the
    success of our military medical system. We thank you for your
    leadership and look forward to your comments and telling us
    your challenges. From the Army, we will hear from Colonel
    Barbara Bruno, who is the Deputy Chief of the Army Nurse Corps.
    We welcome you here, Colonel. We will also hear from Admiral
    Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and Major
    General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General for Nursing
    Services for the Air Force.
        Your patron saint is my friend here from Hawaii, so I will
    yield to him.
        Senator Inouye. Welcome. Is this not Nurses Week?
        General Brannon. This is indeed.
        Colonel Bruno. It is.
        Senator Inouye. I think it is most appropriate that you are
    here, and I want to congratulate all of you and thank you for
    the service you are rendering to our country. It is very
    essential. We would rather listen to you than listen to me. So,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski, comments?
        Senator Mikulski. I believe that the issues of recruitment
    and retention are actually severe in nursing because of the
    issues in the larger community. But again, for everybody who is
    at Naval Bethesda and we have seen you on the hospital ship
    Comfort, we are so appreciative of what you do, and want more
    of you.
        Senator Stevens. Colonel Bruno.

    STATEMENT OF COLONEL BARBARA J. BRUNO, AN, DEPUTY
                CHIEF, ARMY NURSE CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY
        Colonel Bruno. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
    Stevens, Senator Inouye, and Senator Mikulski. Thank you for
    your unwavering support to provide the best nursing care
    possible to American soldiers, their families, and eligible
    beneficiaries.
        I am Colonel Barbara Bruno, Deputy Chief of the Army Nurse
    Corps. It is a real honor and a privilege to speak to you this
    morning on behalf of Major General Gale Pollock, the Chief of
    the Army Nurse Corps. She is hosting an historic military
    medical conference in Hanoi, Vietnam today. She sends her
    regards and wishes she could be here.
        I am going to highlight specific achievements and concerns
    that relate to the ability of the Army Nurse Corps to serve a
    Nation at war. As of March 2005, 765 nurses have deployed to 17
    countries, in addition to Operation Enduring Freedom in
    Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom.
        Caring for critically injured soldiers can be incredibly
    stressful to the deployed staff and to the staff within our
    medical treatment facilities. Nursing research conducted at
    Walter Reed showed that nurses' feelings and emotions, while
    caring for returning injured soldiers, mirrored their deployed
    nursing counterparts. Yet they experience them in different and
    more long-lasting ways. Whereas deployed nurses have short and
    intense exposures to patients with severe and devastating
    trauma, nurses in our fixed facilities have prolonged and much
    more personal experience. They experienced high levels of
    empathy with the injured and their families. This empathy is
    common amongst all health care providers and is described as
    compassion fatigue. Soldiers involved in health care receive
    awareness training and educational material regarding
    compassion fatigue.
        The shortage of nurses in the civilian sector does have a
    direct impact on the entire Federal nursing force. We continue
    to leverage available incentives and seek additional creative
    avenues to recruit nurses. To remain viable in a very tight
    labor market, we have to be competitive.
        One extremely successful recruiting tool we have used in
    the Army is the Army Medical Department enlisted commissioning
    program. This is a 2-year education completion program for
    enlisted soldiers who have acquired the appropriate
    prerequisites. The Reserve component has expressed interest in
    a similar program.
        Another successful initiative directed at civilian Federal
    nurses is the direct hire authority. With this program, the
    time delay between finding a candidate and acceptance of a job
    offer has been significantly reduced. We are optimistic that
    the National Security Personnel System will alleviate the
    obstacles to hiring civilian nurses.
        While recruiting is an obvious challenge, retention is of
    greater concern and a much less conspicuous one in nature. As
    the incentive gap with the civilian sector widens, it will be
    increasingly difficult to retain qualified nurses in military
    service, and for the Army this loss is twofold. We lose a
    superb soldier and a highly trained, experienced nurse.
        Successful retention of nurses is a combination of
    financial compensation, deployment equitability, and military
    benefit preservation. With the support of General Kiley, as he
    mentioned earlier, we have been very successful in the
    incentive specialty pay program for nurse anesthetists. The
    preliminary numbers reveal that 72 percent of the eligible
    nurse anesthetists have signed a multiyear contract since the
    increase in incentive pay. This information suggests a positive
    correlation between the increased pay and retention and
    provides us with good research for future retention strategies
    of other specialties.
        Our commitment to nursing research remains strong. Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center has partnered with Mount Aloysius
    College in Pennsylvania as part of a congressionally funded
    nursing telehealth applications initiative. This relationship
    provides a quality learning experience to nursing students in a
    rural environment. While students and faculty remained at Mount
    Aloysius, two Army nurses took care of various patients in the
    medical intensive care unit (ICU) at Walter Reed, bringing that
    clinical setting to rural Pennsylvania. Our commitment to
    addressing the nursing education insufficiencies exemplifies
    Army Nurse Corps leadership, innovation, and new approaches to
    solve problems.
        Nursing research is invaluable to excellent, evidence-based
    nursing practice. We thank you for your dedicated funding and
    continued support of the TriService nursing research program.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Army Nurse Corps continues to move forward with
    initiatives to improve the best nursing organization in the
    world. Our research is changing nursing practice globally, and
    Army nurses are highly valued throughout the world. With the
    continued support of Congress, Army Nurse Corps compassion and
    leadership will ensure that we are able to take care of our
    military men and women and that they receive the finest health
    care anytime anywhere.
        I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Colonel Barbara J. Bruno, AN

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
    for your unwavering support to provide the best nursing care possible
    to American Soldiers, their families and eligible beneficiaries. In
    today's unprecedented environment of global, joint and collaborative
    military medical operations, we continue to see success in the Global
    War on Terrorism, and have made numerous improvements in nursing care
    delivery at home, abroad and on the battlefield.
        I am Colonel Barbara Bruno, Deputy Chief, Army Nurse Corps (ANC).
    It is an honor and privilege to speak to you today on behalf of Major
    General Gale Pollock, the 22nd Chief of the Army Nurse Corps. MG
    Pollock is hosting an historic military medical conference in Hanoi,
    Vietnam.
        Military forces engage in security cooperation activities to
    establish important military interactions, building trust and
    confidence between the United States and its multinational partners.
    The visible and purposeful presence of U.S. Military capabilities is an
    integral part of an active global strategy to ensure security and
    stability. The Asia Pacific Military Medicine Conference (APMMC) is one
    of the critical tools used to accomplish this.
        The APMMC is the premier medical conference in the Pacific Command
    (PACOM) area of responsibility. This conference provides a forum for
    U.S. Military health care providers and leaders to collaborate with
    Allied and friendly countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Topics of
    military medical significance such as interoperability, medical
    readiness, illnesses, battle injuries, medical technological
    advancements, force health protection, and disaster/consequence
    management are the primary foci of the APMMC.
        As the U.S. Army, Pacific Surgeon, MG Pollock will conduct
    bilateral discussions with senior delegates from over thirty countries
    attending the APMMC. These bilateral discussions provide a forum to
    plan future medical events with regional partners, and enhance
    influence and access to these nations in order to combat terrorism,
    transform alliances, and build coalitions for the future. This year's
    APMMC is in Hanoi, Vietnam. This is particularly significant as it is
    the first time the U.S. Military has ever co-hosted a conference of
    this magnitude with the country of Vietnam.
        The ANC is actively engaged in strategic planning to allow us to
    achieve the greatest benefit, both human and monetary. During this
    congressional hearing I will take the opportunity to highlight specific
    achievements and concerns that relate to the ability of the ANC to
    serve a Nation at war.
        Army Nurses possess the expert clinical skills, compassion, and
    leadership acumen requisite to execute the most challenging missions in
    austere environments. As of March 2005, 419 Active Component (AC) and
    151 Reserve Component (RC) nurses were currently deployed to 17
    different countries including Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation
    Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). An additional 95 Army Nurses have supported
    other medical training missions as subject matter experts, trainers, or
    medical augmentees. Since our last testimony, our deployments total
    over 74,045 person-days.
        The 31st Combat Support Hospital (CSH) from Ft. Bliss, TX and the
    67th CSH from Wuerzburg, Germany transitioned at the end of the 2004
    calendar year with the 86th CSH from Ft. Campbell, KY and the 228th CSH
    (a combined AC/RC unit) from San Antonio, TX. The 115th Field Hospital
    from Ft. Polk, LA, is also in Iraq as medical support for Abu Ghraib
    Prison. The RC continues to take the lead in the medical support
    mission in Afghanistan with the 325th Field Hospital from Los Angeles,
    CA being replaced by the 249th Field Hospital from Independence, MO. In
    addition to the CSHs, 45 nurses deployed on eight Forward Surgical
    Teams (FST) in support of OEF/OIF and two RC CSHs deployed to Germany
    as backfill.
        Army Nurses are serving critical roles in direct support of the War
    on Terrorism at all ranks and skill levels. At the company grade level,
    nurses are instrumental in the leadership and direct supervisory
    training that combat medics receive during their Advanced Individual
    Training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. This training provides combat
    medics with the critical knowledge they need to care for battlefield
    casualties. Often, the diverse clinical experience of the nurse is the
    only conduit between training and the trauma of war for these young
    medics. In addition, 44 Army Nurses are embedded with Divisions and
    Brigade Combat Teams providing direct nursing care to Soldiers in the
    field while also providing advanced training to combat medics prior to
    and during deployment.
        The value of the Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) has never been as
    evident as it is in today's Army. Their expanded roles in the health
    care delivery system make them a highly prized commodity. APNs in
    varying specialties utilize their expertise to ensure patients
    transition smoothly from point of entry through the healthcare system
    based on each patient's individual needs.
        The positive impact Army APNs are having on patient outcomes has
    created a tremendous demand for their services in various healthcare
    settings. Trauma Registry Coordinators, Nurse Practitioners, Nurse
    Anesthetists, Psychiatric Clinical Nurse Specialists, and senior-level
    Case Managers are just a few of the roles in which these highly
    educated nurses are serving.
        In late 2004, six Army APNs deployed to Iraq to serve as Trauma
    Registry Coordinators. These Army Nurses have been an integral
    component of the Army Medical Department's (AMEDD) Theater Trauma
    System. This demonstration project adopted the American College of
    Surgeons Committee on Trauma's model for civilian trauma care into the
    current theater of operation. The Theater Trauma System initiative has
    multiple components: pre-hospital care coordination, utilization of
    clinical practice guidelines for trauma management and patient
    movement, trauma research and integration of clinical information
    systems for care delivery, and command and control. The overarching
    goal has been to ensure ``the right patient, to the right provider, at
    the right location and right time.''
        A cornerstone of the Theater Trauma System is the Joint Theater
    Trauma Registry (JTTR). The JTTR application is used to capture data
    from non-integrated clinical and administrative systems within the
    AMEDD, our sister Services and the Department of Defense. The Trauma
    Registry Coordinators ensure that critical clinical data is collected
    in theater and incorporated into the JTTR to provide a comprehensive
    picture of trauma patients from point of injury through rehabilitation.
    To date, the JTTR contains more than 7,000 records of battle and non-
    battle injuries of United States, Allied and enemy combatants. Our
    support of this initiative remains steadfast, for as the Theater Trauma
    System matures, JTTR data will be used to improve the overall quality
    of care provided to our injured Soldiers.
        An unprecedented move for Family Nurse Practitioners (FNP)--
    substituting for Physician Assistants at Echelon II medical companies--
    begins during the next rotation of OIF. These FNPs will provide primary
    care in field environments and initiate treatment for wounded soldiers.
        Our RC Army Nurses continue to demonstrate excellence in health
    care management. In addition to deploying nurses to theater, numerous
    others are serving in a backfill capacity in our Medical Treatment
    Facilities (MTF). Most noteworthy are the APNs serving as senior-level
    Case Managers at the Regional Medical Commands. These nurses are
    credited with the development of medical holdover case management and a
    patient tracking tool. They supervise 158 Army Reserve and National
    Guard nurses serving as Case Managers in MTFs and Community Based
    Healthcare Organizations located close to Soldiers' homes.
        These RC nurses functioning as Case Managers assist their physician
    colleagues to aggressively manage highly complex wartime patients to
    achieve positive outcomes for the 21,500 Soldiers who have required
    medical care following mobilization. Of the 16,453 Soldiers processed
    since the establishment of the medical holdover management program,
    10,868 Soldiers have returned to their units. This success, a direct
    result of compassionate care and attention to detail, clearly
    demonstrates the need for nurses in the ambulatory healthcare setting.
        Combat is demanding and taxing. Estimates are that between 3
    percent and 4 percent of the general adult population in the United
    States suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Narrow, Rae,
    Robins & Regier, 2002). Among Gulf War veterans, estimates are that
    between 2 percent and 10 percent suffer from PTSD (Iowa Persian Gulf
    Study Group, 1997; Kang, Natelson, Mahan, Lee & Murphy, 2003). In a
    systematic review of 20 studies that compared the prevalence of
    psychiatric disorders in Gulf War veterans to a comparison group of
    veterans previously deployed for other conflicts not including current
    operations, Gulf War veterans were three times more likely to develop
    PTSD (Stimpson, Thomas, Weightman, Dunstan & Lewis, 2003). More
    recently, in a cross-sectional study of 3,671 Soldiers and Marines
    surveyed 3 to 4 months after returning from deployments to Afghanistan
    or Iraq, between 6 percent and 13 percent of the participants suffered
    from PTSD (Hoge et al., 2004). The prevalence of PTSD increased
    linearly with the number of firefights Soldiers experienced and being
    wounded.
        The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
    are taking a proactive approach to monitoring and treating PTSD. One of
    the 26 clinical practice guidelines jointly developed by the Army, Air
    Force, Navy, and Veterans Affairs addresses the management of Post-
    Traumatic Stress. An Army nurse leads the clinical practice guideline
    effort at the Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) disseminating these
    evidence-based practice recommendations across the AMEDD.
        Caring for critically injured soldiers can be incredibly stressful
    for the deployed staff and the staff within our fixed MTFs. Nursing
    research conducted at Walter Reed Army Medical Center showed that
    nurses' feelings and emotions while caring for returning injured
    soldiers mirrored their deployed nursing counterparts, yet they
    experienced them in different and more long-lasting ways. Whereas
    deployed nurses have short and intense exposures to patients with
    severe and devastating trauma, nurses in our fixed facilities have
    prolonged and much more personal exposure. They experienced high levels
    of empathy with the injured and their families. This empathy is common
    among all health care providers and is described as ``compassion
    fatigue.'' Soldiers involved in healthcare receive awareness training
    and educational material regarding compassion fatigue.
        The shortage of nurses in the civilian sector continues to have a
    direct impact on the federal nursing force, both military and
    government service requirements. The AC accession mission for Army
    Nurses has not been met since 1998 while the RC has not met mission
    since 2002. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the AC ANC was 203 officers
    below its budgeted end strength of 3,415 and missed its goal of
    accessing 385 new officers by 48. The RC ANC also missed its accession
    goal of 507 new officers by 141.
        A recent study commissioned by the United States Army Accession
    Command, determined that specific offers and messages can improve the
    accession rate and help to relieve our shortages. The sample population
    included registered nurses, graduate nurses, and nursing students.
    Reducing minimum service obligations, adjusting deployment length,
    ensuring assignment preferences, and increasing financial incentives
    have the most potential impact on nurse accession. As a result of these
    findings, the Chiefs of Nursing for U.S. Army Cadet Command (USACC) and
    U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) have developed several
    initiatives aimed at increasing overall nurse recruitment.
        The first initiative from USACC is the Centralized Nurse
    Scholarship program. It was implemented to focus additional Reserve
    Officer Training Corps (ROTC) battalions on the nurse mission. They
    accomplished the initiative by increasing the number of schools
    actively recruiting nursing cadets from 47 to approximately 200 and
    using the nurse mission as a quantifier of success. They also
    consolidated Nursing Scholarships at USACC Headquarters, centralizing
    funds, and providing responsive access to scholarship resources
    wherever qualified nurse applicants are located. The new program also
    allows students to choose how their scholarship dollars are used. This
    benefits those students who may have received additional academic
    scholarships that are specified for tuition only. In addition, the
    tuition cap and book stipend were increased by $3,000 and $300 per year
    respectively.
        The second initiative from USACC is an expanded ROTC Nurse Educator
    Tour and Nurse Summer Training Program (NSTP). Showcasing ROTC's
    Leadership Development and Assessment Course (LDAC) and NSTP are
    significant recruiting tools available to Army Nursing. During the
    summer of 2004, 150 nurse educators were invited to attend the LDAC at
    Ft. Lewis, WA, in an effort to display the versatility of our nursing
    cadets in both the field training and clinical environments. The nurse
    educators who participated in this program witnessed nursing students
    during leadership training at the LDAC and then received a tour of
    Madigan Army Medical Center where they observed nursing students in the
    clinical setting during NSTP. Nurse educators participating in the tour
    left with a new-found dedication to Army ROTC and a better appreciation
    for the ANC as a whole. As a result of their positive experiences, many
    of these educators now require students returning from LDAC and NSTP to
    provide a presentation about the experience to their classmates,
    inviting more queries about the ANC as a career option. Most schools
    are now encouraging qualified students to consider Army ROTC and many
    are giving academic credit for NSTP completion. The success of this
    program has already made a significant impact in nursing student
    recruitment at these universities.
        In light of this success, USACC has experienced a greatly improved
    collegial relationship with all universities in attendance. In an
    effort to improve recruiting efforts while promoting the positive image
    of Army Nursing, focus has shifted this year to universities who have
    been less than supportive in the recent past. One hundred
    representatives from these universities have been invited to attend
    this years Nurse Educator Tour. This type of networking and partnering
    will increase a positive view of Army Nursing in the civilian
    community.
        While USAREC recruiting initiatives are similar in nature to those
    of USACC, their targeted population is larger and more diverse. They
    are solely responsible for recruitment of RC nurses and all other
    nurses and nursing students not eligible for ROTC.
        The Health Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) was
    instituted in fiscal year 2003 and targeted new accessions to provide
    nurses with an educational loan repayment benefit up to $29,000. Prior
    to HPLRP implementation, USAREC was limited to a sign-on bonus as their
    only financial incentive tool. To date, 345 AC nurses have benefited
    from this program.
        The Army Nurse Candidate Program (ANCP) targets nursing students
    prior to graduation who are not eligible for ROTC but are still fully
    qualified as a direct accession nurse. It provides a $1,000 monthly
    stipend and a $10,000 bonus paid in two increments. The ANCP provides
    USAREC the ability to recruit nursing students as early as their
    sophomore year. This program will give us the leverage to offer
    accession incentives to students much earlier in their education
    program which is essential when competing with the civilian market.
        The Army Enlisted Commissioning Program (AECP), used by AC enlisted
    Soldiers, is an extremely successful recruiting tool. The program
    provides a 2-year education completion program for enlisted Soldiers
    who have acquired the appropriate prerequisites. Currently 75 Soldiers
    are funded annually to obtain their Bachelor of Science Degree in
    Nursing.
        The last AC recruiting initiative we want to highlight is the
    accession bonus. Money is programmed through fiscal year 2008 to
    implement this plan. The current accession bonus is $15,000. The
    proposed increase is $5,000 per year through fiscal year 2008. With
    these targeted increases, USAREC believes we will become comparable to
    the standard sign on bonus of our civilian competition.
        Reserve Component accessions are a concern. Although their overall
    strength remains good, accession percentages have declined in the past
    2 years.
        While recruiting is an obvious challenge, retention is of greater
    concern, and much less conspicuous in nature. Unlike recruitment, the
    inability to retain a mid-level officer comes at a much higher expense.
    For the military, the loss is two-fold--a superb Soldier and a highly
    trained and experienced nurse.
        Nurses have continually answered the call to service and it is
    critical that we develop appropriate retention strategies to ensure an
    adequate force structure exists to support our fighting forces. Their
    successful retention is a combination of financial compensation,
    deployment equitability, and military benefit preservation.
        The critically low density area of concentration that is most
    severely affected by attrition is the Certified Registered Nurse
    Anesthetist (CRNA). CRNA actual end strength has fallen to 70 percent.
    With the support of Lieutenant General Kiley, The Army Surgeon General,
    Health Affairs and the Army, the ANC was successful in implementing a
    major restructuring of the Incentive Specialty Pay (ISP) program for
    CRNAs that addressed two issues important to this population. First, it
    provided the first increase in ISP in nearly 10 years to officers
    fulfilling their initial Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO). This
    change was central to our retention strategy as disparity in pay for
    this population was identified as a major source of dissatisfaction.
    Additionally, the revised ISP structure provided the option to receive
    significantly higher annual ISP payments in exchange for incrementally
    longer service obligations, one to 4 years, after completing their
    initial ADSO.
        Preliminary numbers reveal that of the 116 CRNAs eligible to sign
    for multi-year contracts, 84 (72 percent) have done so. The information
    suggests a positive correlation and retention of other nursing
    specialties may require ISP programs. Our next specialty concerns are
    the operating room, intensive care unit (ICU), and emergency room (ER)
    nurses who are in high demand both in the Army and the civilian
    healthcare market.
        Financial compensation is also a retention initiative for our
    government service employees. Several civilian personnel initiatives
    are focused on alleviating government nursing shortages. Nursing has
    benefited from Direct Hire Authority (DHA). The time delay between
    finding a candidate and acceptance of a job offer was reduced from over
    100 days to an average of 19 days under DHA.
        Madigan Army Medical Center is participating in the first iteration
    of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). This system
    recognizes the need to modernize the personnel system for the
    Department of Defense. The NSPS must significantly improve the
    personnel system for healthcare occupations.
        One initiative that demonstrates promise is the Army Civilian
    Training Education Development System (ACTEDS). This program is an Army
    Requirements-based system that ensures development of civilians through
    a blending of progressive and sequential work assignments, formal
    training, and self-development for individuals as they progress from
    entry level to key positions. ACTEDS provides an orderly, systematic
    approach to technical, professional, and leadership training and
    development similar to the military system. It provides civilian
    employees base documents specific for career development within their
    chosen profession. Several ACTEDS plans are now available to government
    civilian nurses.
        Another retention strategy currently implemented focuses on
    intrinsic rewards. The role of the Nursing Consultants to the Surgeon
    General is expanding to include input into the personnel deployment
    system and involvement with the officer distribution process for all
    critical wartime specialties. This strategy coupled with implemented
    policies to ensure equitable utilization of our deployment pool will
    assist us in the retention of highly educated professional nurses.
    Limiting the unknown for nurses by providing adequate notification of
    impending deployment and providing a predictable period of family
    separation should improve retention.
        Walter Reed Army Medical Center has partnered with Mount Aloysius
    College in Cresson, Pennsylvania as part of a phased 4-year Nursing
    Telehealth Applications Initiative. This relationship, which provides a
    quality learning experience to improve the academic preparation of
    nurses, will assist to alleviate the critical nursing shortage.
        The purpose of this study was to determine if the concept of a
    ``Virtual Clinical Practicum TM'' was a viable venue for nursing
    students to gain clinical skills in the absence of physically visiting
    clinical sites. Nursing students attending Mount Aloysius College, a
    rural community, have no opportunity to experience an ICU environment.
    Using Telehealth Technology, nursing students observed and learned
    about the nursing care of complicated adult medical patients and
    experienced an ICU clinical experience remotely. While students and
    faculty remained at Mount Aloysius, the nurse experts, two ANC
    Officers, took care of various patients in the Medical ICU at Walter
    Reed.
        The professionalism and clinical expertise of the ANC officers was
    enthusiastically embraced by both the students and faculty. There are
    follow-on studies planned with this technology. Our commitment to
    address nursing education insufficiencies exemplifies ANC leadership,
    innovation, and new approaches to solve current problems.
        Nursing research, like the Nursing Telehealth Applications
    Initiative, is invaluable to excellent, evidence-based nursing
    practice. We thank you for your dedicated funding and continued support
    of the TriService Nursing Research Program. Army nurses along with
    their Federal and civilian colleagues are dedicated to the
    dissemination of knowledge and improvement of professional nursing
    practice.
        Army Nurses are conducting and participating in a number of studies
    specific to the care of deployed troops. Nurses at Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center are collaborating with their Air Force colleagues to
    assess aeromedical evacuation needs of war injured service members. At
    Brooke Army Medical Center, Army and Air Force Nurses are determining
    best methods to teach nurses how to care for chemical casualties and
    how to facilitate long term skills retention.
        Nurse researchers at several locations are investigating deployment
    experiences of AMEDD personnel to seek information on improving quality
    of care for wounded service members and the emotional health of nursing
    personnel. Compassion fatigue of nurses who are working at our fixed
    facilities is another area of ongoing inquiry.
        Nurses at Madigan Army Medical Center are enhancing Combat Medic
    skill sustainment using simulated battlefield conditions and SimMan,
    life-sized, computer-linked robots. This study will validate and
    standardize Combat Medic evaluation scenarios and template evaluator
    competencies.
        Madigan Army Medical Center is also studying the impact of head
    nurse leadership on retention of junior ANC Officers. This research
    will provide information about essential leadership competencies and
    performance expectations from ANC Officers.
        Nurses at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Madigan Army Medical
    Center, and the Army Medical Department Center and School are
    coordinating the multi-site Military Nursing Outcomes Database (MilNOD)
    study being conducted at six Army, three Air Force, and four Navy
    facilities. This study is investigating the relationship of staffing to
    various nurse and patient outcomes. The study team continues to
    collaborate with the California Nursing Outcomes Coalition and the
    Veteran's Administration Outcomes Database Project (VANOD), building
    upon each other's collective experience in this unique work. The
    research team and collaborators, including the American Nurses'
    Association's National Database for Nursing Quality Improvement
    (NDNQI), created the National Nursing Quality Database Consortium and
    held an invitational methodology conference this past fall. The purpose
    of the conference was to learn from and work with researchers from
    other disciplines, who are at the cutting edge of new methods to
    analyze these types of data. The National Nursing Quality Database
    Consortium is hosting its first national conference this spring to
    share the knowledge gained from this collaboration with other
    colleagues in the nursing field.
        Recognizing the benefit of nursing research departments staffed
    with Doctorally prepared nurse researchers conducting militarily
    relevant nursing research, I am pleased to announce we have opened a
    research department at Tripler Army Medical Center, the fourth in the
    Army Medical Department. These nurses are working with the Hawaii
    Nursing Taskforce and Queen's Medical Center on a grant submission to
    study the Effect of Magnet Environments on Patient and Nursing
    Outcomes. Other research initiatives include evidence-based practice
    projects to develop standards of practice for pressure ulcer prevention
    and preparing children for surgery. Additionally, working with Pearl
    Harbor Naval Base and Hickam Air Force Base clinic nurses, military
    nurse researchers at Tripler will utilize research findings to
    standardize and implement the most appropriate nursing interventions
    and document measurable nursing outcomes for specific inpatient and
    outpatient military beneficiaries.
        Anesthesia students are very involved in research activities
    studying pain and re-warming techniques following surgery, and the
    effects of different anesthetic medication and adjunct therapies on
    patient outcomes. New technologies, such as piezoelectric technology,
    are also being studied. This technology allows a Soldiers' vital signs
    to be continuously monitored while being transferred from the field to
    a definitive care setting.
        In addition to our research activities, the ANC is dedicated to
    Soldier training and professional military education. Preparing our
    Soldiers to provide relevant, competent and professional care in any
    environment requires a robust training program. The ANC is constantly
    adapting our training programs to prepare Soldiers for their primary
    occupational specialty and go-to-war skills.
        The Department of Nursing Science (DNS) at the Army Medical
    Department Center and School (AMEDDC&S) is using research and lessons
    learned from our deployed colleagues to improve training. Among the
    many initiatives over the last year, trauma and burn care was
    incorporated into the ANC Officer Basic Course. Combat stress education
    was added to the Army Nurse Captains Career Course. Ethical treatment
    of all patients is highlighted in all of our courses. In addition,
    components of Warrior Ethos Training and simulation experiences are
    being incorporated into the program to better prepare Soldiers for
    combat survival. The U.S. Army School of Aviation Medicine is piloting
    a Joint Enroute Care Course to prepare ICU and ER Nurses and improve
    care for patients evacuated from the battlefield via rotary wing
    aircraft.
        The ANC extends our appreciation and recognizes the faculty
    leadership of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    (USUHS) for their academic achievements and initiatives. The Graduate
    School of Nursing has been instrumental in providing highly trained,
    FNPs, CRNAs, and Doctorally prepared nurses. Graduates from these
    programs continue to enjoy a higher than average national pass rate on
    certification exams. We look forward to the May graduation of their
    first Peri-operative Clinical Nurse Specialist Course and the addition
    of a Military Contingency Medicine course.
        The ANC continues to move forward with initiatives to improve the
    best nursing organization in the world. Our research is changing
    nursing practice globally and the officers of the ANC are highly valued
    throughout the world. With the continued support of Congress, the
    clinical excellence, compassion, and leadership strengths of Army
    Nurses will ensure our military men and women receive the world's
    finest healthcare anywhere, anytime.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral Lescavage.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE, NAVY
                NURSE CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY
        Admiral Lescavage. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator
    Inouye, Senator Mikulski. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage,
    the 20th Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the
    Naval Medical Education and Training Command in Bethesda,
    Maryland. It is indeed an honor and privilege to speak before
    you about our outstanding 5,000 Active and Reserve Navy nurses
    who continue to provide preeminent health care in all
    operational, humanitarian, and conventional settings. I want
    you to know our military and civilian nurses continue to
    proudly demonstrate professional excellence in promoting,
    protecting, and restoring the health of all entrusted to our
    care anytime and anywhere.
        I would like to address five specific areas.
        Number one, as our Surgeon General addressed, is readiness.
    In this area, Navy medicine's first priority, Navy nurses
    remarkably deliver superb medical care throughout the
    battlefield continuum. We have recorded over 125,000 mission
    days in operational and training exercises. Navy nurses have
    deployed this past year throughout the world to Kuwait, Iraq,
    Djibouti, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Philippines, Thailand, and
    Guantanamo Bay. As you know, humanitarian efforts have been
    provided to tsunami and Haitian relief countries, as well as in
    our homeland in Pensacola after Hurricane Ivan.
        Some examples of our readiness training are the following.
    Through the Navy trauma training course with LA County/
    University of Southern California Medical Center in Los
    Angeles, our Navy nurse instructors provide participants real-
    life exposure while integrating with the hospital's trauma
    staff to provide specialized care. Our nurses who are training
    there are part of a team of physicians and corpsmen who soon
    will go in harm's way. The newly established Navy EnRoute Care
    Corps has trained 22 Navy nurses at Camp Lejeune, North
    Carolina prior to their deployment to Iraq. This course
    includes a training pipeline involving the Air Force critical
    care air transport course, Navy trauma training course, and
    helicopter egress and water survival training. We also continue
    to contract with civilian trauma centers in close proximity to
    our medical treatment facilities for additional training and
    real-life experiences in trauma.
        To optimize the readiness capability of our sailors and
    marines, we have placed nurse practitioners on board our
    aircraft carriers Nimitz, Kennedy, and Enterprise. In addition
    to rendering traditional episodic care on those carriers, our
    nurse practitioners promote wellness through post-deployment
    health assessments, tobacco cessation, and medical exams. A
    nurse practitioner with two other health care team members was
    recently deployed to the Nimitz to assist 6,000 of our sailors,
    who were just coming back from the Middle East, which resulted
    in the most efficient completion of the post-deployment health
    assessment evolution known to any vessel.
        The second area I want to address is quality health
    services. In sync with Navy medicine's second priority of
    delivering quality and cost-effective health care, our Navy
    nurses span the continuum of care from promoting wellness to
    maintaining the patient's optimal performance. Innovative
    examples include the mental health nurse outreach program with
    the Marine Corps School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune, the
    Partnership for In-Garrison Health and Readiness in Camp
    Pendleton, and the Nurse Managed Welcome Center at Pearl
    Harbor. Through a comprehensive referral network with the VA
    transition program, our nurse case managers are right in there
    assessing rehab specialists in collaboration with other
    specialties for our returning casualties to get the best care
    possible.
        Other initiatives include the Nurse Run Medevac Transport
    Team at Bethesda and our specialized wound care clinics
    throughout our medical treatment facilities (MTF).
        In an age of cost containment, our nurses are savvy in
    business planning and continuously evaluate best health care
    business practices. Nurses in the ambulatory care setting have
    implemented clinical business rules and performance goals to
    guide their daily practice. Disease management programs for
    asthma, diabetes, breast cancer, and cardiac care have improved
    the patient screening rates. They have recaptured network costs
    and they have maximized provider productivity and guaranteed
    exceptional continuity of care, which is what it is all about.
        To enhance our quality of care, a sample of research topics
    includes clinical knowledge development from care of the
    wounded during Operation Iraqi Freedom, retention of recalled
    Nurse Corps Reservists, the effects of oxidative stress on
    pulmonary injury in our Navy divers, and factors associated
    with post partum fatigue in our Active duty women in the
    military. Several of these studies are funded by the TriService
    Nursing Research Program, which fosters military nursing
    excellence and promotes collaboration between not only military
    nurse researchers but with academia as well.
        In support of One Navy Medicine concept, which Admiral
    Arthur spoke to, the integration of our Active, Reserve, and
    civilian nurses renders a more efficient, effective, and fully
    mission-ready nursing force. With the deployment of over 400 of
    our Active duty Navy nurses, along with the mobilization of our
    reserve Navy nurses to support our military treatment
    facilities, there has been neither a reduction of inpatient bed
    capacity nor an increase of disengagements to the network.
        Together, as an example, we have also optimized joint
    training opportunities such as the chem-bio-radiological
    Defense training program between Navy Health Care New England,
    the Rhode Island National Guard and the marines at their local
    Reserve center. In addition, while our Active duty nurses
    attend the EnRoute Care course, our Reserve nurse officers
    participated in a pilot program of the Joint EnRoute Care
    course in the U.S. Army School of Aviation at Fort Rucker.
        Never have opportunities been greater for all of our corps
    to be in executive positions. To meet the mission in all care
    environments through Navy medicine's fourth priority of shaping
    our force, it is critical we specifically shape Navy nursing
    with the right number of nurses with the right education and
    training in the right assignments at the right time. Our Active
    duty component is presently 96 percent manned, with 2,979 of
    our almost 3,100 positions filled. However, for the first time
    in over 10 years, we only attained 68 percent of our fiscal
    year 2004 Active duty recruitment goal, acquiring 63 out of 92
    nurses.
        Of note, though, we recently increased our nurse accession
    bonus to $15,000 to be competitive with the other services. In
    addition, since the inception of the Nurse Candidate Program,
    this is the first year we were able to essentially double the
    accession bonus from $5,000 to $10,000 and their monthly
    stipends doubled as well from $500 to $1,000.
        Regarding our Reserve recruiting goal, we may experience
    challenges in attaining specific specialties. Of particular
    note, the hospital corpsmen professional development option was
    initiated last year for Reserves as part of a 3-year pilot
    program. In this scenario, our Reservists are provided drill
    credits while attending a bachelor of science in nursing
    curriculum. This upward mobility program will serve as an
    accession source for junior Nurse Corps officers.
        We also, in five of our military treatment facilities, are
    doing a pilot program where nurses are paid similar to VA
    nurses for on-call, holiday, weekend, and shift differential,
    and that is registered nurses (RNs) and in the future our
    licensed practical nurses (LPNs).
        Promoting retention, we have several initiatives to retain
    our talented professional nursing force. Our graduate education
    scholarship program is our number one retention tool. We give
    about 90 of those scholarships every year. We carefully
    identify our graduate education programs and we are trying to
    take the specialties that are most used in wartime and train to
    them. We strongly support our nurses to attend USUHS.
        Another significant first-time accomplishment. We were able
    to increase the certified registered nurse anesthetist
    incentive special pay to a multiyear contract this year. As
    part of a 1-year pilot program, we also have initiated special
    pays similar to the VA hospitals, as stated. After 1 year, we
    will evaluate these programs to see what that does for our
    retention and increasing salaries.
        To maximize our joint medical capabilities, as our final
    priority, we collaborate and integrate with the other services,
    as well as with local, State, and Federal agencies. As nurses
    function in significant roles in homeland security within Navy
    medicine, we also participate in joint programs for chemical
    and biological defense, and in many of our treatment
    facilities, nurses are at the forefront for emergency
    preparedness.
        In conclusion, the Navy Nurse Corps has been consistently
    dynamic in this ever-changing world. Our Navy nurses are using
    the latest technology, as you well know. We are conducting
    cutting-edge research and creating health policies across
    military medicine to advance our practice and improve all of
    our delivery systems.
        It has been an honor to serve as the 20th Director of the
    Navy Nurse Corps. I am very proud of our distinguished corps
    and of our great history. The Nurse Corps this Friday on May 13
    turns 97 years old. As I move on to a new assignment as
    Director of TRICARE Regional Office West in San Diego, I remain
    committed to the Navy Nurse Corps, our great Navy, and the
    Marine Corps team, and the Department of Defense. Like many of
    our Navy nurses and my professional colleagues who function in
    pivotal executive roles, I will continue to support our efforts
    to impact legislation, health care policy, and medical delivery
    systems. I hand the Navy Nurse Corps over to the very capable
    leadership of my successor, Rear Admiral (Select) Christine
    Bruzek-Kohler.
        My greatest gift every day lies in working with the fine
    officers and civilians who support our military and in
    collaborating with my splendid colleagues, not only in the
    armed forces, but across academia and in our Federal and
    international governments. I want you to know we give our best
    always to the heroes, past and present, who keep this country
    free and our best to their families who support them so well.
        Thank you. As always, we appreciate your great support.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Admiral.
        Admiral Lescavage. You are welcome, Senator.
        [The statement follows:]Lescavage.txt

             Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Nancy J. Lescavage

        Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished
    members of the Committee. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, the 20th
    Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the Naval Medical
    Education and Training Command. It is indeed an honor and privilege to
    speak before you about our outstanding 5,000 Active and Reserve Navy
    Nurses who continue to provide preeminent health care in all
    operational, humanitarian and conventional settings.
        As key members of the Navy Medicine team, our military and civilian
    nurses proudly demonstrate operational readiness and personal
    excellence in promoting, protecting and restoring the health of all
    entrusted to our care anytime, anywhere. Aligned with our Surgeon
    General's five priorities, we continuously monitor our capabilities and
    embrace innovations to meet challenges head-on during these rapidly
    changing times. I will address each priority and illustrate how Navy
    Nursing meets our unique dual mission in the support and protection of
    our operational forces, while at the same time providing health care to
    family members and retirees.

                                   READINESS

        In the area of readiness, Navy Medicine's first priority, Navy
    Nurses continue to readily adapt and remarkably deliver superb medical
    care throughout the battlefield continuum in support of our operational
    and humanitarian mission via Surgical Companies, Surgical Teams, Shock
    Trauma Platoons, the Forward Resuscitative System, Fleet Hospitals,
    Expeditionary Medical Facilities, on Navy and Hospital Ships, and our
    Military Treatment Facilities at home and abroad. In addition to the
    services provided by our nurses assigned to operational billets, we
    have recorded more than 125,000 mission days in operational and
    training exercises. Operational platform and intensive trauma training
    formulate the framework for our nurses to capably provide immediate and
    emergent interventions and perform safely in any situation or austere
    environment.
        In meeting our mission requirements, we continuously shape our
    Force Structure with emphasis on critical care, emergency, trauma,
    perioperative, medical-surgical, anesthesia and mental health nursing
    specialties. Navy Nurses have deployed this past year throughout the
    world to Kuwait, Iraq, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Philippines,
    Thailand and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Humanitarian efforts have been
    provided to Tsunami and Haitian relief countries, as well as Pensacola
    after Hurricane Ivan. Together with our Canadian and British active and
    reserve colleagues, we have also been involved in several large
    combined joint task force exercises. To achieve all of this and more,
    our mobilized Reserve Nurses have spectacularly integrated with our
    military and civilian staff and have dedicated themselves to providing
    exceptional care to our service members and beneficiaries on the
    homefront.
        To enhance our mission-ready capabilities, joint training
    opportunities have been maximized with our military and civilian
    medical communities which involves hands-on skills training, the use of
    innovative state-of-the-art equipment, and the proliferation of web-
    based programs for multi-system trauma casualties. Through the Navy
    Trauma Training Course (NTTC) with the LA County/University of Southern
    California Medical Center in Los Angeles, Navy Nurse instructors
    provide participants ``real life'' exposure while integrating with the
    hospital's trauma staff to provide specialized care. Our 46 nurses who
    rotated through the program this past year have stated that they were
    better prepared to treat our trauma casualties. The newly established
    Navy EnRoute Care Course recently trained 22 Navy Nurses at Camp
    Lejeune, North Carolina, prior to deploying them to Iraq. This course
    includes a training pipeline involving the Air Force Critical Care Air
    Transport Course, Navy Trauma Training Course, and Helicopter Egress/
    Water Survival training. This highly specialized care is essential to
    our Forward Resuscitative Surgery System in order to transport and
    provide required medical care to patients who are at risk of sudden,
    life threatening changes prior to their transport to a higher echelon
    level of care. Through the Tri-service Combat Casualty Course, our
    nurses train in simulated combat conditions. For specific nursing
    specialty needs, the Services have supported each other. One fine
    example is the coordination of intensive care unit training with
    Landstuhl Medical Center for our nurses in Naples, Italy. We also
    continue to contract with civilian trauma centers in close proximity to
    our Military Treatment Facilities for didactic training and ``hands-
    on'' care. In addition, our Nurse Internship Programs at several of our
    teaching facilities continue to facilitate the transition of our new
    nurses into the Navy.
        To optimize the readiness capability of our Sailors and Marines, we
    have placed nurse practitioners onboard the aircraft carriers NIMITZ,
    KENNEDY, and ENTERPRISE. In addition to rendering traditional episodic
    care, they promote wellness through post-deployment health assessments,
    tobacco cessation, and medical exams. Additionally, the nurse
    practitioners conduct medical training (e.g. Basic Life Support and
    Deckplate Health Promotion Courses). They also update medical supplies,
    equipment and practice guidelines while underway. A nurse practitioner
    with two other health care team members was deployed to the aircraft
    carrier NIMITZ to assist 6,000 sailors returning from Iraq, resulting
    in the most efficient completion of the Post Deployment Health
    Assessment Evolution of any vessel as hallmarked by the Commander of
    the Naval Air Force, United States Pacific Fleet.

                            QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES

        In sync with Navy Medicine's second priority of delivering quality
    and cost-effective health care, our Navy Nurses span the continuum of
    care from promoting wellness to maintaining the optimal performance of
    the entire patient.
        Innovative health services programs and joint partnerships across
    our military treatment facilities help us to maintain a readiness focus
    for our patient population. Examples include the Mental Health Nurse
    Outreach Program with the Marine Corps School of Infantry at Camp
    Lejeune; the Partnership for In-Garrison Health and Readiness in Camp
    Pendleton; and the Nurse-Managed Welcome Center at Pearl Harbor,
    Hawaii. Nurses in the Case Management Department at the National Naval
    Medical Center have programs supporting the continuum of care for our
    returning casualties. Through a comprehensive referral network with the
    Veteran Affairs' Transition Program, our nurses can access
    collaboratively-developed clinical practice models such as traumatic
    brain injury and post traumatic stress guidelines. They additionally
    utilize rehabilitation specialists and are now able to identify the
    best available health care while the patient is on convalescent leave
    or is between rehabilitation stays. There are many other military
    member initiatives, such as the Nurse Run Medevac Transport Team at
    Bethesda, Maryland that cares for returning casualties. We have
    specialized Wound Care Clinics throughout our military treatment
    facilities and we, now more than ever, utilize our mental health
    nurses.
        The Nurse Call Center at Jacksonville, Florida is the benchmark for
    other military treatment facilities and provides 24/7 triage and advice
    coverage, emergency room follow-up calls, and a direct link to the
    patient's primary care manager or specialist. Disease Management
    Programs for asthma, diabetes, breast cancer, and cardiac care have
    improved screening rates; recaptured network costs; maximized provider
    productivity; and guarantee exceptional continuity of care at Patuxent
    River, San Diego, and Cherry Point. Other innovative programs include
    the Health Lifestyle Choice Program for children and teens at San Diego
    and the Post Partum Clinics in Bremerton, Pensacola, Guam, Twenty-Nine
    Palms, and Yokosuka. In concert with the Armed Forces Center for Child
    Protection, the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Program is now being
    piloted at six of our hospitals with additional emphasis on parent
    training.
        In an age of cost containment while promoting high quality of
    patient care, it is essential that nurses are trained in business
    planning and continuously evaluate best health care business practices.
    For example, one of our nurses developed a survey to evaluate disease
    (asthma and diabetes) and condition management measures as part of a
    Navy-wide ``Disease and Condition Management Report Card'' which is
    comprised of clinical and financial metrics. At Bethesda, nurses in the
    ambulatory care setting have implemented clinic business rules and
    performance goals to guide daily practice. At Naval Hospital
    Jacksonville and the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, nurses have
    collaboratively developed an electronic patient tracking system which
    integrates the Emergency Department with Ancillary Services. Through
    the use of information technology, patient status and movement within
    the facility are closely monitored; clinical data is more expeditiously
    recalled; and personnel resources can be adjusted for well-justified
    reasons.
        Research priorities are focused on workforce retention, clinical
    practice, deployment experiences, outcomes management, and the gaining
    of specific competencies. A sample of research topics includes:
    clinical knowledge development from care of the wounded during
    Operation Iraqi Freedom; the perinatal depression screening program;
    retention of recalled Navy Nurse Corps Reservists; the effects of
    oxidative stress on pulmonary injury in Navy divers; retention criteria
    for military health system nurses; and factors associated with post
    partum fatigue in Active Duty military women. Several of these studies
    are funded by the TriService Nursing Research Program, which fosters
    military nursing excellence and promotes collaboration between not only
    military nurse researchers but with academia as well.
        Our nursing research has been disseminated through countless
    professional forums worldwide, such as at distinguished conferences
    sponsored by the National Nursing Honor Society Sigma Theta Tau, the
    Association of Military Surgeons of the United States (AMSUS), TRICARE,
    Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom, and the Micronesian
    Medical Symposium. Numerous publications by Navy Nurses can be found in
    prestigious professional journals, such as the Journal of Trauma,
    Critical Care Nurse, Journal of the American Association of Nurse
    Anesthetists, Military Medicine, Geriatric Nursing and many more. In
    addition, many of our nurses have received esteemed awards at
    University Annual Research Day presentations, as well as at the Phyllis
    J. Verhonick Army Research Conference which acknowledged a joint
    service study called, ``A TriService Integrated Approach to Evidence
    Based Practice.''

                               ONE NAVY MEDICINE

        In support of the One Navy Medicine concept as a third priority,
    the integration of active, reserve and civilian nurses renders a more
    effective, efficient and fully mission-ready nursing force both at home
    and abroad. With the deployment of over 400 Active Duty Navy Nurses
    along with the mobilization of Reserve Nurses to support our Military
    Treatment Facilities, there has been neither a reduction of inpatient
    bed capacity nor an increase of network disengagements.
        Together, we have also optimized joint training opportunities, such
    as the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Defense (CTR-D) Program
    training between the New England Naval Health Care Ambulatory Clinics,
    the Rhode Island Air National Guard, and the Marines at their local
    Reserve Center. Expert instructors deliver both classroom and
    confidence chamber training, including exercises involving the use of
    gas masks and chemical suits. While our Active Duty Nurses attend the
    Navy EnRoute Care Course, our Reserve Nurse Corps Officers recently
    participated in a pilot program of the Joint Medical EnRoute Care
    Course at the U.S Army School of Aviation Medicine at Fort Rucker,
    Alabama. This program combines medical skills and rotary wing training
    to create a cadre of joint service, multidisciplinary team members to
    provide an advance level of care during transport.

                            SHAPING TOMORROW'S FORCE

        To meet the mission in all care environments through Navy
    Medicine's fourth priority of shaping tomorrow's force, it is critical
    that we continuously focus on our human capital strategy. Our goal here
    is to specifically shape Navy Nursing with the right number of nurses
    with the right training in the right assignments at the right time, and
    become the premier employer of choice for active, reserve and civilian
    nurses. We accomplish this through several interdependent processes.
    With nurse executive leadership, we have identified specific nursing
    specialties for each deployable assignment to meet operational
    requirements. Personnel with the right clinical expertise are assigned
    to deployable platforms. When not deployed, these nurses serve in our
    Military Treatment Facilities to meet our peacetime mission. We
    carefully identify graduate education programs that best meet our
    specific requirements, such as our wartime specialties in critical
    care, emergency, trauma, perioperative, anesthesia, medical-surgical
    and mental health. Finally, while closely monitoring the national
    nursing shortage, we continue to pursue available authorities to
    recruit and retain our exceptionally talented nurses.
        Our Active Duty component is presently 96 percent manned with 2,979
    of our 3,094 positions filled. As a result, our recruitment efforts are
    focused on maintaining adequate staffing to continue to meet our
    mission, particularly in our critical wartime specialties. Our pipeline
    scholarship programs help contain our annual recruiting goals. However,
    for the first time in over 10 years, we only attained 68 percent of our
    fiscal year 2004 Active Duty recruitment goal, acquiring 63 out of 92
    nurses. We recently met with success in increasing our Nurse Accession
    Bonus to $15,000; we continue to maintain our presence at national
    nursing conferences and tap Navy Nurses at all levels to market our
    career opportunities to their professional associations. Since the
    inception of the Nurse Candidate Program, this is the first year we
    have essentially doubled the Accession Bonus from $5,000 to $10,000 and
    the monthly stipend from $500 to $1,000.
        Regarding our reserve recruiting goal, we may experience challenges
    in attaining our specific specialty in some areas. Of particular note,
    the Hospital Corpsman/Dental Technician Professional Development Option
    was initiated last year for the Reserves as part of a 3-year pilot
    program. Reservists are being provided drill credits while attending a
    Bachelor of Science in Nursing curriculum. This upward mobility program
    will serve as an accession source for junior Nurse Corps Officers.
        Promoting retention, we have several initiatives to retain our
    talented professional nursing force. As mentioned earlier, our graduate
    education scholarship program is a primary motivator for recruitment
    and our number one retention tool. Within our education plan, we
    strongly support nurses who choose to attend the Graduate School of
    Nursing at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. At
    present we have sixteen students in the Nurse Anesthesia, Family Nurse
    Practitioner, Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist, and Doctoral
    Programs with an additional eleven students slated to begin in the
    coming academic year. As we continue to collaborate and identify our
    mission requirements, the faculty leadership has refined their
    curricula to meet our needs. Two classic examples include the
    development of the Military Contingency Medicine/Bushmaster Program to
    optimize mission readiness and the focus of research efforts towards
    relevant military nursing topics.
        Another significant first-time accomplishment to assist in our
    retention efforts, we were able to increase the Certified Registered
    Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay or ISP to a multi-year contract
    program. For all Nurses, we continue to focus on quality of
    professional life by granting appropriate scopes of practice and giving
    them challenging leadership positions.
        To recruit civil service nurses, we continue to use Special Hire
    Authority to expeditiously hire nurses into the federal system. We
    sometimes can supplement these new hires with recruitment, retention
    and/or relocation bonuses depending on staffing requirements and
    available funds. As part of a 1-year pilot program, we have initiated
    Special Pays for registered nurses at five of our Military Treatment
    Facilities for such things as on-call, weekend, holiday, and shift
    differential with increased compensations. We will soon pilot the
    program for Licensed Vocational Nurses at the same sites. After 1 year,
    we will evaluate the effectiveness of these programs in retaining these
    clinical experts.

                           JOINT MEDICAL CAPABILITIES

        In continuously shaping our human capital work force of nurses, we
    are better able to collaborate and integrate with the other Services,
    as well as local, state and federal agencies to maximize our joint
    medical capabilities within our final priority of working jointly.
    Nurses now function in significant roles in Homeland Security within
    Navy Medicine by developing policy, plans and a concept of operations
    and then managing programs that focus on the security of our customers
    and our bases. The challenges of today have created a need to evolve
    the nursing role into a greater perspective that crosses the joint
    service and interagency world at all levels. As one example, a Navy
    Nurse is one of two medical representatives working with the Joint
    Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense to assess
    and analyze installations to identify appropriate levels of CBRN
    (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) equipment distribution
    and support for 59 Navy installations. Nurses at Bethesda, Maryland
    have been at the forefront with the first collaborative emergency
    preparedness exercise involving military, federal and civilian health
    care facilities in the National Capitol Region. In addition, in many of
    our Military Treatment Facilities, nurses are assigned disaster
    preparedness and homeland security responsibilities. Noted for our
    clinical expertise, operational experiences and solid leadership
    qualities, I can assure you that our Navy Nurses are collaborating at
    all levels.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Navy Nurse Corps has been consistently dynamic in this ever-
    changing world, remaining versatile as visionary leaders, innovative
    change agents and clinical experts in all settings. Our Navy Nurses are
    at the forefront using the latest technology in the operational setting
    and in our Military Treatment Facilities; conducting cutting edge
    research; performing as independent practitioners; and creating health
    care policies across Military Medicine to advance nursing practice and
    to improve delivery systems.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share the accomplishments and
    issues that face Navy Nursing. It has been an honor to serve as the
    20th Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. I am very proud of our
    distinguished Corps and of our great history. As I move on to a new
    assignment as Director of TRICARE Region West in San Diego, I remain
    committed to the Navy Nurse Corps, our great Navy and Marine Corps
    Team, and the Department of Defense. Like many of our other Navy Nurses
    and my professional colleagues who function in pivotal executive roles,
    I will continue to support our efforts to impact legislation, health
    care policy and medical delivery systems. I hand the Navy Nurse Corps
    over to the very capable leadership of my successor, Rear Admiral
    (Select) Christine Bruzek-Kohler.
        My greatest gift everyday lies in working with these fine Officers
    and Civilians and in collaborating with my splendid colleagues across
    the services, across academia and in our federal and international
    governments. I want you to know we give our best always to those heroes
    and families who keep this country free. There is no greater honor than
    to serve. Thank you.

        Senator Stevens. General Brannon.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL BARBARA C. BRANNON,
                ASSISTANT AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL FOR
                NURSING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
                FORCE
        General Brannon. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and
    Senator Mikulski, I am delighted to once again represent your
    Air Force nursing team. This year marks my sixth report to you,
    and it is amazing how quickly the years pass by.
        Our Air Force Medical Service has persevered in providing
    outstanding health care in a very dangerous world. Air Force
    nurses and aerospace medical technicians are trained, equipped,
    and ready to deploy anywhere anytime at our Nation's call. It
    has been an honor to care for so many heroes.
        In support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
    Freedom, 2,160 Air Force nurses and technicians deployed this
    past year. Our aeromedical evacuation (AE) system has proven to
    be the critical link in the chain of care from battlefield to
    home station.
        In 2004, Air Force nursing AE crews completed 2,866
    missions supporting 28,689 patient movement requests around the
    world. Critical care air transport teams (CCATT) were used in
    486 of the AE operations.

                     CRITICAL CARE AIR TRANSPORTATION TEAMS

        The synergy of combining our AE crews with these critical
    care air transportation teams has enabled us to transport more
    critically ill patients than ever before. Additionally,
    advances in technology and in pain management have greatly
    enhanced patient comfort and patient safety.

                              SPECIALTY PROVIDERS

        The success of deployed medical care depends on having
    specialty providers available when needed. Certified registered
    nurse anesthetists fulfilled 100 percent of their deployment
    taskings, plus 47 percent of the anesthesiologist taskings.
    They have ably met all mission requirements and patient care
    needs.
        Lieutenant Colonel Bonnie Mack and Major Virginia Johnson
    deployed to Tallil Air Base in Iraq as the only anesthesia
    providers for 20,000 United States and coalition forces. On one
    occasion Colonel Mack and Major Greg Lowe provided 24 hours of
    anesthesia for six Italian soldiers who were severely wounded
    in a terrorist bombing. These men survived only because expert
    anesthesia and emergency surgery was close at hand.
        Air Force mental health nurses have also played an
    important role in caring for our wounded and for our health
    care teams. Sixteen mental health nurses were deployed to the
    Ramstein Air Base contingency air staging facility to support
    patients from all services. They provide early intervention to
    ameliorate long-term emotional effects and in some cases even
    facilitate return to duty in theater. We recently incorporated
    mental health nurse practitioners into our provider teams, and
    they can also substitute for psychiatrists and psychologists in
    the deployed setting.

                       332ND EXPEDITIONARY MEDICAL GROUP

        Our largest group of Air Force medical ``boots on the
    ground'' is at the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group at Balad,
    which transitioned from Army to Air Force staffing last
    September. Its multinational team currently includes 148 Active
    duty Air Force nursing personnel, and they have many stories to
    tell. They provided lifesaving surgery for a 65-year-old Iraqi
    woman who triggered an explosive device as she answered her
    front door. Her daughter was a translator for the U.S. forces.
    They cared for the wife of an Iraqi policeman and her two
    children, all badly burned, when a grenade was thrown into
    their home. Since September, this team has supported 10 mass
    casualties, 3,800 patient visits, and 1,550 surgeries.
        Air Force nurses are outstanding commanders in both the
    expeditionary environment and at home station. This past year,
    3 nurses have deployed as commanders of expeditionary medical
    units, and at home there are 16 nurses commanding Air Force
    medical groups, 45 nurses command squadrons and 1, Colonel
    Laura Alvarado, is serving as a Vice Wing Commander.
        The nurse shortage does continue to pose an enormous
    challenge and we need to maintain robust recruiting to sustain
    our Nurse Corps. This year we have brought 110 new nurses on to
    Active duty, which is slightly more than at this same point
    last year.

                                NURSE RETENTION

        Retention, of course, is the other key dimension of force
    sustainment, and while monetary incentives play the key role in
    recruiting, quality of life issues become important as career
    decisions are being made. We continue to enjoy excellent
    retention in the Air Force and we ended fiscal year 2004 close
    to our authorized end strength.
        In 2004, the services were directed to identify non-wartime
    essential positions for conversion to civilian jobs. Initially
    we targeted almost 400 nursing positions for conversion over
    the next 3 years, primarily in our outpatient areas. This
    allows us to concentrate our Active duty nursing personnel in
    areas that will sustain their wartime skills. As force shaping
    continues, we will identify additional positions, but recognize
    that the nursing shortage may present hiring challenges.

                      TRISERVICE NURSING RESEARCH PROGRAM

        The TriService Nursing Research program continues to
    support major contributions to the science of nursing. This
    year 25 Air Force nurses are engaged in studies covering topics
    from expeditionary clinical practice to retention. For example,
    Reserve nurse Colonel Candace Ross is the principal
    investigator for a study on the impact of deployment on
    military nurse retention. Her findings should provide a road
    map for more effective retention strategies.
        The Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services
    University is very responsive to developing programs to meet
    our military nursing requirements. The school graduates its
    first class of perioperative clinical nurse specialists in May
    and the inaugural Ph.D. class will complete its very successful
    second year. Our certified registered nurse anesthetists
    (CRNAs) program at USUHS continues to graduate top-notch
    providers who score well above the national average on their
    certification exam. In 2004, 9 out of the 13 graduates earned a
    perfect score on the examination. This program is also unique
    in that it provides hands-on experience in field anesthesia.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    it has certainly been a tremendous honor to serve our Nation
    and to lead the more than 19,000 men and women of our Active,
    Guard, and Reserve total Air Force nursing force. I have
    increasingly treasured your support and your advocacy during
    this very challenging time for nursing and for our Nation.
        Thank you for inviting me once again to tell our Air Force
    nursing story. No one comes close.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Major General Barbara C. Brannon

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is an
    honor and great privilege to again represent your Air Force nursing
    team. This year marks my sixth report to you and I am amazed how
    quickly the years pass by. It has been an honor to support and care for
    so many heroes--military men and women ready to sacrifice their lives
    for the cause of freedom, national security and a safer world.
        Our Air Force Medical Service has persevered in providing
    outstanding healthcare in a very dangerous world. Terrorist
    organizations continue to challenge our peace and security and natural
    disasters have taken a huge toll in death and devastation. Air Force
    Nurses and Aerospace Medical Technicians are trained, equipped and
    ready to respond anytime, anywhere at our nation's call.

                             EXPEDITIONARY NURSING

        In support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM, 2,160
    nurses, and technicians deployed this past year as members of 10
    Expeditionary Medical Support Units, two Contingency Aeromedical
    Staging Facilities (CASF), and five Aeromedical Evacuation (AE)
    locations. Three nurses commanded expeditionary medical facilities and
    provided outstanding leadership. Today, Air Force nursing personnel are
    serving in a large theater hospital in Balad, smaller hospitals at
    Kirkuk and Baghdad International Airport, and in other deployed
    locations.
        The 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group at Balad is currently home to
    70 nurses, 6 licensed practical nurses and 99 medical technicians. This
    multi-national group includes 148 nursing personnel from the Air Force
    active duty team. During this current rotation, they have already
    supported 3,800 patient visits with 1,600 hospital admissions and 1,550
    surgeries. Some patients with massive trauma require surgical teams
    that include up to seven different surgical specialties simultaneously.
    They have responded to at least 10 mass casualty surges and have many
    stories to tell. They provided lifesaving surgery and cared for a 65-
    year-old Iraqi woman who triggered an explosive device when she
    answered her front door. Her daughter was a translator for U.S. Forces.
    They cared for a young mother, her two-year old child, and her two-
    month old baby, all badly burned when a grenade was thrown into their
    home. Her husband is an Iraqi policeman. The team in Balad is our
    largest group of Air Force medical ``boots on the ground,'' providing
    life-saving surgery, intensive care and preparation for aeromedical
    evacuation.
        I have had the opportunity to watch our tremendous Air Force
    nursing team in action as they provide world-class healthcare to
    wounded soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Military medics are
    saving the lives of people with injuries that would have been fatal in
    other wars. During World War I, 8.1 percent of the wounded died of
    their wounds. Today, lifesaving medical capability is closer to the
    battlefield than ever before, and in Iraq only 1.4 percent of the
    wounded have died.
        Aeromedical Evacuation has proven to be the critical link in the
    chain of care from the battlefield to home station. The availability of
    aircraft for patient movement is fundamental to the Aeromedical
    Evacuation system. Patient support pallets and additional C-17 litter
    stanchions have increased the number of airframes that can be used for
    aeromedical evacuation.
        In 2004, our Air Force nursing AE crews have flown 2,866 missions
    supporting 28,689 patient movement requests around the world. The
    majority of our AE missions are crewed by members of the Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve; it is a seamless, total nursing force
    capability.
        The synergy of combining aeromedical evacuation crews with critical
    care air transport teams (CCATT), additional high-technology equipment,
    advances in pain management and more extensive crew training has
    enabled us to transport more critically-ill patients than ever before.
    In 2004, CCATT teams were used in 486 patient movement operations. For
    example, Major Gregory Smith from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was
    deployed as the nurse on a three-person CCATT. The team cared for nine
    casualties who required intensive care and were wounded during the
    Battle for Fallujah. Six of these patients had lifesaving surgery
    within six hours of injury and were evacuated from the field hospital
    within 48 hours of injury. Eight of the nine patients required
    mechanical ventilation during the flight. CCATT capability makes early
    air transport possible, reducing the requirement for in-theater beds
    and delivering injured troops to definitive care within hours rather
    than days.
        There are many, many examples of the tremendous capability and
    endurance of the AE crews. In one instance, Major Marianne Korn, a
    reserve flight nurse from the 452nd Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron,
    March Air Force Reserve Base, and her AE crew transported 82 patients
    from Ramstein Air Base to Andrews Air Force Base in response to
    Operation PHANTOM FURY. Overall, during this time the squadron surged
    to support a 35 percent mission increase and transported more than
    1,400 patients between the CENTCOM, EUCOM and NORTHCOM theaters.
        Another integral part of the aeromedical evacuation system is the
    Aeromedical Staging Facility (ASF) that serves as both an inpatient
    nursing unit and passenger terminal for patients in transit. They are
    staffed primarily by nursing personnel from the reserve, guard and
    active component of the Air Force. The level of activity is tied
    closely to the intensity of the conflict. ASF nurse Lieutenant Karen
    Johnson and her team cared for 296 patients from 13 separate missions
    within a three-day period following fierce fighting in Operation
    PHANTOM FURY.
        About that same time, Colonel Art Nilsen, Chief Nurse of the Air
    Force Squadron at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, wrote to me and
    highlighted the tremendous accomplishments of the Army and Air Force
    team working together in that hospital. He invited me to visit and, in
    early December, barely three weeks later, I landed at Ramstein Air Base
    in Germany. My first stop was the 435th CASF at Ramstein, celebrating
    its first anniversary. Major Todd Miller, Chief Nurse, shared the
    amazing successes of the CASF over the past year. Deployed personnel
    have staffed the CASF on a rotational basis; a total of 391 nursing
    personnel from 55 Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve and active duty
    units. The team cares for every patient that transits Ramstein, a total
    of more than 22,000 in 2004. In the CASF, an empty bed is a welcome
    sight and means another patient is a step closer to home.
        It was already dark when I went out to the aircraft with the CASF
    team. I had a chance to talk with each patient as they were transferred
    from the aircraft to the waiting ambulance bus. It had been a long and
    uncomfortable flight, but it was obvious that they had been well cared
    for and were anxious to continue their journey home. Many talked about
    the wonderful medical care they had received and gave special praise to
    the Air Force team at the theater hospital at Balad Air Base and to the
    AE crews.
        I met many of these young men again when I visited Landstuhl
    Regional Medical Center. My visit was shortly after the battles in
    Fallujah, and the hospital and AE system were at surge capacity, as
    busy as in the early months of war. I will never forget the wounded
    marines and soldiers at Landstuhl. I was humbled by their acts of
    courage, their unwavering loyalty and sense of duty to their buddies.
    The nursing team on the units looked tired but energized. Everyone was
    working long hours and extra days. But when word came that an aircraft
    was arriving from Iraq, they came in to help--on days off and even
    after finishing a long shift. Many said they thought this would be the
    sentinel experience of their lives and careers. Those who had worked in
    large civilian trauma centers said they had never before cared for
    patients with injuries as severe.
        Two days later, I was headed home on a C-17 with eighteen litter
    patients, another twenty who were ambulatory and an AE crew from the
    315th Reserve Squadron at Charleston, SC and the 94th Reserve Squadron
    at Dobbins, GA. The medical crew director was Major Joyce Rosenstrom, a
    reserve nurse with the 315th. There was also a critically wounded
    marine on board who was accompanied by an active duty CCATT from the
    medical center at Keesler Air Force Base, MS., led by pulmonologist,
    Col Bradley Rust. The other team members were critical care nurse, Capt
    Erskine Cook and cardio-pulmonary technician SrA Laarni San-Agustin.
    The ten-hour flight was relatively uneventful with the medics working
    non-stop to ensure each patient received great care with particular
    attention to pain management. At the Andrews Air Force Base flight
    line, medical personnel from the Air Force hospital, Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center transferred patients
    to waiting ambulance buses. The patients' journey from the battlefield
    back to the United States was complete.
        The success of deployed medical care depends on having specialty
    providers available when needed. Anesthesiologists are key members of
    surgical teams, but significant shortages on active duty have left gaps
    on deployment packages. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs)
    have filled deployment requirements for anesthesia providers forty-
    seven percent of the time and have ably met all mission and patient
    care requirements.
        Lieutenant Colonel Bonnie Mack and Major Virginia Johnson are CRNAs
    deployed to Tallil Air Base in Iraq as the only anesthesia providers
    for over 20,000 U.S. and coalition forces, and civilian contract
    personnel. During their deployment, a terrorist bomb ignited an Italian
    police compound just 10 kilometers from their facility. Colonel Mack
    and Major Greg Lowe provided anesthesia during the surgeries of six
    severely wounded Italian soldiers, working continuously for almost 24
    hours. These men survived because emergency surgical intervention and
    anesthesia were there to support them.
        During her deployment, Colonel Mack also served on a Critical Care
    Expedient Recovery Team assembled at Tallil to provide medical care on
    combat search and rescue missions when a para-rescue team is not
    available. Their role is to provide care during transport of recovered
    crew members to a medical facility. A mission can take the team into
    dangerous territory, but she willingly volunteered. In her words ``it
    is a great honor to be involved in the safe return of even one
    airman.'' Her team flew training missions and launched in response to a
    bombing in Karbala, but fortunately did not have to respond to a downed
    airman.
        Major Delia Zorrilla, a perioperative nurse, was awarded the Bronze
    Star in recognition of her tremendous service while deployed to Manas
    Air Base, Kyrgyzstan in support of Operation MOUNTAIN STORM. She served
    as the Chief Nurse of the facility and established a resupply system
    that ensured critical surgical supplies were available 24/7.
        Our mental health nurses have played an important role in caring
    for patients during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING
    FREEDOM. Sixteen mental health nurses deployed to Ramstein Air Base to
    support Army troops returning from Iraq. They first interact with
    patients in the CASF and screen for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
    They also provide patient education and strategies for coping with
    emotional distress and life-altering injury. Having this capability far
    forward enables early intervention and can ameliorate long-term
    emotional effects and, in some cases, even facilitate return to duty in
    theater.
        In the last sixteen months we have recognized the importance of
    mental health nurse practitioners and inserted the capability into
    deployment packages. They can also substitute for psychiatrists and
    psychologists in the deployed setting. We currently have five working
    in our facilities and five more will begin their practitioner programs
    this summer.
        In addition to providing service in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Air
    Force Nursing supports humanitarian relief around the world. Lieutenant
    Colonel Diana Atwell from Beale Air Force Base, CA led a team of 14 Air
    Force and 30 Salvadorian military and Ministry of Health medics in a
    humanitarian mission to San Salvador. The team planned and set up
    healthcare at five sites in impoverished districts within the city.
    They provided primary care, internal medicine, pediatric, optometry and
    dental services to more than 8,000 patients. Patients lined up for
    hours and more than 11,000 patient care services were provided, double
    what the team had anticipated. General Carlos Soto Hernandez, military
    Chief of Staff, visited one of the sites and praised them for their
    dedication and commitment.
        In another humanitarian effort, Major Tina Cueller, a reservist and
    Professor at the University of Texas, launched an initiative to assist
    Iraqi nurses. During her annual tour at Ramstein AB, Maj Cueller
    learned that over the years, looting in Iraq had stripped nursing
    schools of all textbooks. When she returned to the University of Texas,
    she arranged a book drive, collecting over 3,000 nursing textbooks.
    They were delivered through the aerovac system from Lackland AFB,
    Texas, to Ramstein Air Base Germany, to their final destination, Kuwait
    City. Major Cheryl Allen, an Army nurse, received the books in Kuwait
    and forwarded them to Baghdad where Colonel Linda McHale, deployed to
    work with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, coordinated their distribution.
        Humanitarian relief is not confined to far-away places, and the Air
    Force has been called to lend a hand in support of Homeland Medical
    Operations. Capt Ron Leczner from the 81st Aeromedical Staging Facility
    (ASF) at Kessler, MS coordinated the transfer of 47 local nursing home
    patients after the governor of Mississippi declared a mandatory
    evacuation of the Gulf Coast in anticipation of Hurricane Ivan. A
    skeleton crew at the ASF, including medical technician students, moved
    41 non-ambulatory and six ambulatory geriatric patients to Keesler
    Medical Center during 69 mile per hour winds. The nursing home
    residents were returned to their facilities by ASF staff and local
    ambulances within 12 hours after the hurricane passed.
    Skills Sustainment
        Lessons learned from the field and after-action reports have led us
    to reevaluate clinical currency and sustainment training for our
    nursing personnel. Our Readiness Skills Verification Program has been
    refined and is web-based with embedded links to specific training
    materials. Units are encouraged ``to think outside the box'' and
    establish training agreements as needed with Army, Navy, VA or civilian
    institutions to keep their members clinically current.
        Air Force nurse and medical readiness officer Major Lisa Corso from
    the 704th Medical Squadron at Kirtland, NM, found new ways to improve
    the readiness skills of her reserve unit. For their annual field
    training and mass casualty exercise, Major Corso invited the local Army
    reserve unit to participate. Both groups were part of the planning
    process and the Army medics had a wealth of first-hand experience from
    members previously deployed. They provided expert instruction on skills
    that were identified for refresher training. The exercise was a huge
    success, and both units look forward to more joint training exercises
    in the future.
    Recruiting and Retention
        The nurse shortage continues to pose an enormous challenge
    nationally and internationally. This year, the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics projected registered nursing would have the largest job
    growth of any occupation through the year 2012, and it is now estimated
    that job openings will exceed the available nurse pool by 800,000
    positions. The crisis is complicated by an increasing shortage of
    masters and doctoral-prepared nursing faculty across the country.
    Although the number of enrollments in entry-level baccalaureate
    programs rose 10.6 percent last year, the National League for Nursing
    reported that more than 36,000 qualified students were turned away due
    to limitations in faculty, clinical sites, and classrooms. Employer
    competition for nurses will continue to be fierce, and nurses have many
    options to consider.
        A robust recruiting program is essential to sustain the Nurse
    Corps; our fiscal year 2005 recruiting goal is 357 nurses. As of March
    22, 2005, we have brought 110 new nurses onto active duty, 31 percent
    of our goal and more than at the same point last year. The Air Force
    continues to fund targeted incentive programs to help us attract top
    quality nurses. We have increased our new accession bonuses from
    $10,000 to $15,000 for a four-year commitment and our highly successful
    loan repayment program was again available this year. Last year we
    awarded 134 loan repayments, and this year funds were available for 26.
    Both of these programs have been very successful in attracting novice
    nurses but not as successful in attracting experienced nurses,
    particularly in critical deployment specialties. To further support
    recruiting, we have increased nursing Air Force ROTC quotas for the
    last two years and filled 100 percent of our quotas. We added
    additional ROTC scholarships for fiscal year 2005, increasing our quota
    from 35 in fiscal year 2004 to 2041.
        We continue to advertise our great quality of life, career
    opportunities and strong position on the healthcare team. I also take
    advantage of any occasion to highlight the tremendous personal and
    professional opportunities in Air Force Nursing. I encourage nurses to
    visit their alma mater and nursing schools near their base. Our slogan,
    ``we are all recruiters'' continues to reverberate, and active duty
    nurses enthusiastically tell our story and encourage others to ``cross
    into the blue''. We have also expanded media coverage of Air Force
    Nursing activities and accomplishments to attract interest in the
    civilian nurse community. The cover of the December 2004 Journal of
    Emergency Nursing featured Air Force nurse Major Patricia Bradshaw and
    Technical Sergeant Patricia Riordan, respiratory therapist. They
    deployed to the 379th Expeditionary Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron and
    were shown caring for a wounded IRAQI FREEDOM soldier. The article
    showcased the unique role of critical care nurses in the aeromedical
    evacuation environment. Nursing Spectrum magazine honored Lieutenant
    Colonel Cassandra Salvatore as the Greater Philadelphia/Tri-State Nurse
    of the Year and Capt Cherron Galluzzo, Florida Nurse of the Year for
    2004 and Air Force Company Grade Nurse of the Year.
        Retention is the other key dimension of force sustainment. While
    monetary incentives play a key role in recruiting, quality of life
    issues become very important considerations when making career
    decisions. We continue to enjoy excellent retention in Air Force nurses
    and ended fiscal year 2004 close to our authorized end strength of
    3,760.
        We conducted a survey in 2004 to identify positive and negative
    influences on nurse corps retention. The top two factors influencing
    nurses to remain in the Air Force were a sense of duty and professional
    military satisfaction. Our nurses clearly enjoy the unique opportunity
    to serve our country and to care for our troops. Local leadership and
    inadequate staffing were the two primary detractors identified. We are
    clarifying their concerns and are providing better leadership
    development programs. We are also putting senior, experienced nurses
    back at the bedside to guide and mentor our junior nurses and support
    their professional development and satisfaction.
        It has been three years since we initiated our Top Down Grade
    Review to correct our imbalance of novice and expert nurses. We have
    identified a number of company grade authorizations for conversion to
    field grade based on requirements and continue to pursue adjustments of
    authorizations among other career fields. We also identified the
    significant positive impact civilianizing a larger percentage of
    company grade positions would have on grade structure and career
    progression. Serendipitously, the services were directed by the Office
    of the Secretary of Defense to identify military positions not wartime
    essential that could be converted to civilian jobs. In our initial
    evaluation we identified 305 Nurse Corps and 75 enlisted Aerospace
    Medical/Surgical Technician billets to convert to civilian
    authorizations over the next three years. These changes will primarily
    be in the outpatient setting, concentrating our military personnel in
    our more robust patient care areas to maintain clinical currency in
    wartime skills. We will continue to identify nurse positions which do
    not provide expeditionary capability or support our wartime training
    platforms for civilian conversion.
    Research
        Air Force nurse researchers continue to excel at expanding the
    science of military nursing practice thanks to the strong support from
    the TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP). This year, Air Force
    nurses are again leading the way in advancing our understanding of the
    effects of wartime deployment on today's military force. Twenty-five
    Air Force nurses are currently engaged in research covering priorities
    from clinical practice and training to recruitment and retention
    issues.
        Colonel Penny Pierce is an Air Force Reserve Individual
    Mobilization Augmentee assigned to the Uniformed Services University of
    the Health Sciences (USUHS) Graduate School of Nursing (GSN). She is
    conducting research to determine the effects of deployment experiences
    and stressors on women's physical and mental health, and their
    likelihood to remain in military service. Colonel Pierce received the
    2004 Federal Nursing Services Award at the 110th Annual Meeting of the
    Association of Military Surgeons of the United States for her
    pioneering research on factors that influence the health of military
    women.
        Colonel Candace Ross, a reserve nurse at Keesler Air Force Base in
    Biloxi, Mississippi is heading up a TSNRP-funded study on the Impact of
    Deployment on Nursing Retention. The study is designed to identify
    factors associated with retention of nursing personnel in the military
    service in hopes of identifying actionable areas for retention efforts.
        Colonel Laura Talbot, an Air Force reservist with the 440th Medical
    Operations Squadron at General Mitchell Air Reserve Station in
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and nursing faculty member at USUHS, is
    conducting research to test two different approaches to prosthetic
    rehabilitation for soldiers with below-the-knee amputations. This
    research is vital because 2.4 percent of all wounded-in-action during
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM have suffered traumatic
    amputations. This is almost double the 1.4 percent during the Korean
    Conflict. Her research may promote accelerated rehabilitation for
    amputees and facilitate return to active duty for those who are able.
    Education
        The Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University
    (USUHS) supports military clinical practice and research during war,
    peace, disaster, and other contingencies. The PeriOperative Clinical
    Nurse Specialist program will graduate its first class of six in May
    2005. The students are conducting research to identifying
    organizational characteristics that promote or impede medication errors
    across the surgical continuum of care. Fewer medication errors will
    save lives and shorten hospital stays. They will be presenting their
    work at the National Patient Safety Foundation Conference later this
    spring.
        The graduates of the Nurse Anesthesia Program in 2004 once again
    scored significantly higher than the national average on their
    certification examination. Nine of the 13 CRNA graduates scored the
    maximum score of 600 and three scored 595 or higher, well above the
    national average of 551.5.
        In addition, the Air Force is currently funding two full-time
    students and another Air Force nurse is enrolled part time in the USUHS
    PhD program.
    Nursing Force Development
        The USAF Nurse Transition Program (NTP) marked its 27th year in
    2004. The NTP is an 11-week, 440-hour course designed to facilitate the
    transition of novice registered nurses to clinically competent Nurse
    Corps officers. The program provides clinical nursing experience under
    the supervision of nurse preceptors and training in officership and
    leadership. There were several key changes this year, among them the
    addition of our first overseas NTP training site at the 3rd Medical
    Group, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Last November, under the
    guidance of NTP Coordinator, Major Deidre Zabokrtsky, we successfully
    graduated our inaugural class of four nurses from the program.
        Our nurses provide outstanding leadership in the expeditionary
    environment, in military treatment facilities, and in positions not
    traditionally held by Nurse Corps officers. We currently have 16 nurses
    commanding Medical Treatment Facilities and 45 nurse Squadron
    Commanders. Col Laura Alvarado is the first nurse to serve as a Vice
    Wing Commander, and is at the 311th Human Systems Wing, Brooks City
    Base, TX. Maj Kari Howie is a CRNA and the first nurse to serve as the
    Deputy Chief of Clinical Services for a major command headquarters.
        This year, for the first time in history, two active duty nurses
    are serving concurrently as general officers in the Air Force.
    Brigadier General Melissa Rank joins me, and was promoted to her
    current grade on January 1, 2005.
        Colonel John Murray was the first military nurse to be appointed
    full professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences. Colonel Murray was also selected by the Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Health Affairs to serve on the National Advisory Council
    for Nursing Research.
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it has
    been my tremendous honor to serve our nation and to lead the more than
    19,000 men and women of our active, guard and reserve total Air Force
    Nursing team for the last five years. I have increasingly treasured
    your support and advocacy during this challenging time for nursing and
    for our Air Force. Thank you for inviting me to tell our story once
    again. No one comes close!

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank each of you very much. It is
    delightful to have you back with us again this year.
        I only have one question, and I am going to usurp Senator
    Mikulski's role. You have heard her suggestion. Would that
    suggestion have any role in the nursing corps, Colonel?
        Colonel Bruno. Yes, sir, I think it certainly would. We
    currently have a program in place to loan repay, but it is a
    short-term, funded-this-year program to loan repay up to
    $30,000 for Nurse Corps officers, one time. It has been a
    useful tool in our recruiting. It was implemented at a time
    when we also increased the accessions bonus for those nurses.
    So they could come on to active duty and get a longer
    obligation if they took the accessions bonus and the loan
    repayment. So it has been useful, and we think that a continued
    use of that would be great.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral.

                           RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

        Admiral Lescavage. I believe it is a great idea. As I
    observe recruiting and retention in the Navy Nurse Corps and
    all across military medicine, as the Surgeons General stated,
    it is not necessarily about monetary resources. We stay in for
    certainly greater reasons. However, monetary resources help and
    I believe that we need to be equitable.
        And as I watch recruiting, I can tell you it is difficult
    to be at a recruiting booth where either our sister services or
    other Federal entities or in the civilian arena are all
    offering different options. We all have different programs, and
    perhaps it is time that we all get aligned and we are on the
    same song sheet.
        The idea that Senator Mikulski had is a very good one. As I
    stated, we are doing a pilot program in five of our military
    treatment facilities for the civilian nurses and trying to
    retain them. But as mentioned, you go to the VA, and there are
    different options down that road too. So we are looking for
    anything out there, any ideas. So thank you.
        Senator Stevens. General.
        General Brannon. I would like to make two points. First of
    all, our loan repayments have been the most successful tool to
    bring new graduates into our Nurse Corps.
        Senator Stevens. How much can you repay the debt?
        General Brannon. This year we were repaying $29,000. Last
    year it was $28,000, a one-time thing. We gave 134 loan
    repayments. This year we had 26 to offer, and they went very
    quickly. The $15,000 accession bonus is helpful, but the loan
    repayment is more popular. People come out with a tremendous
    amount of debt from nursing school.
        The one point I would like to make, however, as our
    accession bonus and loan repayment is successful, we do have
    problems attracting experienced nurses in some of the critical
    specialties. Both of these incentives tend to bring people who
    are brand new out of school. So we do spend time molding and
    shaping them.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. If I may, I would like to follow up on that
    without getting into Senator Mikulski's territory.
        According to the Department of Labor Statistics of the
    United States, by the year 2012, there will be a demand for
    over 1 million new and replacement nurses, and it appears that
    we will not be able to meet that demand. So obviously it is not
    just in the services but throughout this Nation. I do not know
    what the solution is, but it is a very critical one and
    something has to be done, otherwise we will have great problems
    not in just recruiting nurses but in recruiting military
    personnel.
        I would like to ask a couple of questions. Most Americans
    look upon nurses as being female, but I know that in the
    military there are a lot of men. What proportion of the Nurse
    Corps in the Army is male?

                              MALES IN NURSE CORPS

        Colonel Bruno. About 34 percent.
        Senator Stevens. And in the Navy?
        Admiral Lescavage. One-third.
        General Brannon. We are about the same, sir, about 32 to 33
    percent.
        Senator Stevens. Do you make a special effort to recruit
    men or it is the same?
        General Brannon. It really is the same in the Air Force,
    sir.
        Admiral Lescavage. They seem more than interested in
    joining the military services. Many, I notice, do go on to be
    nurse anesthetists or critical care nurses and operating room
    nurses.
        General Brannon. You know, I do notice that probably a
    larger percentage of the men do have prior service, and I think
    they see nursing as a wonderful career opportunity, they get
    their education, and then they join the Nurse Corps.
        Senator Inouye. General Brannon, what is this air
    expeditionary force concept that you employ in your recruiting?
        General Brannon. You mean as far as----
        Senator Inouye. Deployment.
        General Brannon. In deployment. Well, really the Air
    Force's air expeditionary forces consist of essential teams
    that are on call to deploy and manage our medical facilities in
    the case of medical and to provide patient care for a period of
    time. We have five teams that are in what are called the Air
    Expeditionary Force (AEF) window. So we have one team that is
    deployed at any time.
        We use that combined with our expeditionary medical system
    which is our very capable, small facilities, up to the size of
    a theater hospital that we deploy far forward in kind of a hub
    and spoke arrangement. So we have teams of people that come
    into these areas, take over for the crew that is ready to
    rotate back home, and provide that in-theater care. So it is a
    great system.
        I think now we have all developed the mind set that as
    medics, we are expeditionary. Deployment is no longer something
    that you might be called to do. It is a part of your service
    and you can anticipate and look forward to your opportunity to
    serve. It has created a lot of enthusiasm, I think, for that
    military aspect of service.

                                   VA NURSES

        Senator Inouye. Admiral Lescavage, in your presentation I
    got the impression that VA nurses are paid better than Navy
    nurses. Is that correct?
        Admiral Lescavage. Yes, sir, and the VA doctors in many
    cases.
        Senator Inouye. I thought it was the other way around.
        Admiral Lescavage. Well, if you add our retirement, perhaps
    that may change the numbers a bit, but as you know, not
    everyone stays to retirement.
        Senator Inouye. At this moment, the pay of VA nurses is
    higher than military nurses?
        Admiral Lescavage. It depends on the grade level, but many
    times, yes.
        Senator Inouye. Is that the situation in the Army?
        Colonel Bruno. Yes, sir, it certainly is. We can use
    special pay rates that equal what the VA is if the VA is in the
    area, but they are difficult to implement. You have to do
    studies, but we do utilize them effectively.
        Senator Inouye. Is that the situation in the Air Force?
        General Brannon. Well, sir, I do not think there is a
    significant discrepancy in our Active force and the VA nurses.
    What becomes of great concern is the VA nurses and our civilian
    Air Force nursing force. As we look to increase our number of
    civilian nurses, the competition with the VA will be
    significant. So we are seeking to establish pay rates that are
    comparable with VA nursing pay.

                               DEPLOYMENT POLICY

        Senator Inouye. Is the deployment policy among the services
    the same or do they differ in every service?
        Colonel Bruno. I think they are different, sir. In the
    Army, if you deploy, you deploy for 1 year, and you are
    stabilized for as long as possible afterwards, but the
    deployment is 1 year.
        Senator Inouye. What about the Navy?
        Admiral Lescavage. We are about 6 months, depending on the
    mission.
        General Brannon. We have 16 months at home and then a 4-
    month deployment, then 16 months at home, 4-month deployment,
    for the most part.
        Senator Inouye. What would happen if the Army adopted the
    Air Force plan?
        Colonel Bruno. Well, I think it might be helpful with our
    retention of some nurses. We have an exit poll that we conduct
    when nurses leave, and one of the issues that has come forward
    in the last 2 years has been the length of deployment. It is
    very difficult to be away from home for that length of time.
        Senator Inouye. What about the Navy?
        Admiral Lescavage. Well, I think our people are pretty
    happy with the 3 to 6 months. We support the marines, as you
    know, and we are sending mostly operating room nurses, critical
    care, and nurse anesthetists. So up to 6 months seems to do the
    trick.
        Senator Inouye. Have your problems increased now that
    sailors are doing ground duty in Iraq?
        Admiral Lescavage. I'm sorry.
        Senator Inouye. The sailors are now doing infantry work in
    Iraq.
        Admiral Lescavage. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Has that complicated your problems in Iraq?
        Admiral Lescavage. No, sir. We are there to support the
    sailors and the marines and any others.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We are very much on your side. In addition to being on this
    excellent subcommittee, I have a civilian life both on the
    Labor/HHS Committee, and working with Senator Sue Collins, we
    have been working on the civilian nursing shortage. So we know
    that you are in a war for talent with community-based hospitals
    and academic centers of excellence where the nurses themselves
    are being trained. As you know as nurses, you tend to stay
    where you get your training. It is just part of the culture. So
    we understand that. And then VA is competing with them, and now
    we have got all this competition. So we understand the
    challenges that you face.
        One of my first questions is the retention issue and what
    does it take to be able to retain. Now, Senator Inouye raised
    the issue of the OPTEMPO which you are facing, and I think we
    would encourage an evaluation of that. Also, how we could be
    supportive in that evaluation as you have to go up with your
    brass. So you are not functioning by yourself here as
    independent agents.
        Second, I was fascinated, General Brannon, where on page 16
    of your testimony you said two things affected them. It was not
    only money and OPTEMPO, but it was local leadership and
    inadequate staffing. What does local leadership mean? Is that
    the general over the base? Is this the nurse on the floor that
    the young nurse reports to?
        General Brannon. Well, that is a very good question and one
    I have asked myself. We need to go back and survey that.
    Anecdotally when I talk to some of the junior nurses, we tend
    to have a pretty junior staff, and we have very junior folks
    often working together. I think they lack that closer contact
    with the more seasoned, experienced nurses who provide the
    professional development, the support, and really the nurturing
    that every nurse needs. We are looking at changing our system a
    bit to put some of the more senior experienced nurses back into
    direct patient care so they can be the mentors and leaders to
    our promising young officers.

                              INADEQUATE STAFFING

        Senator Mikulski. Also, what about the inadequate staffing?
    It seems like one goes against the other.
        General Brannon. Sure, and I think inadequate staffing
    derives from--our staffing ratios are pretty good, and I know
    you are familiar with that, knowing what is going on in nursing
    around the Nation, but when you have people who are deployed
    off the units or out of the facility, everybody picks up a
    little bit additional duty.
        Senator Mikulski. So there is a lot of stress.
        General Brannon. There is a lot of stress.
        Senator Mikulski. So your nurses, male and female, are
    saying, number one, there is the pay issue.
        Second, there is the deployment, but when you are in the
    military, you know you are going to be deployed, but there are
    different deployment schedules within the services. The
    question is should we have a uniform deployment policy. I do
    not know that. I would look to you and your wise heads.
        And then the other, though, is the staffing. There is the
    staffing in battlefield conditions, or in your riveting story
    about traveling from Iraq all the way back to Andrews, this was
    a very poignant story that you tell in your testimony.
        But the question is what about the use of other kinds of
    nurses. At the hospitals, does everyone have to be a bachelors
    degree nurse to be with you? Can you use community college
    nurses? Can you look at medical corpsmen who have a background
    and perhaps use that medical background, a military background,
    but get an associate of arts of degree in nursing and move them
    quicker into the field? Because if they are enlisted, they tend
    to be older and, quite frankly, cannot take time off while they
    are in school.

                               EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

        General Brannon. Well, frankly, Senator Mikulski, I think
    one of the things that makes our military nursing force so
    strong is our educational level. As you know, we are across the
    services an all-baccalaureate force on Active duty, with about
    one-third having masters degrees.
        It is very difficult to present evidence that says that
    makes a difference. However, this past year in the Journal of
    the American Medical Association there was a great study by
    Professor Linda Aiken in Pennsylvania actually showing that in
    surgical patients, the higher percentage of the baccalaureate
    prepared nurses, the fewer complications and the lower the
    incidence of morbidity and mortality. So I think we are
    beginning to see some substantive evidence that education does
    make a difference----
        Senator Mikulski. I am in no way minimizing the bachelor of
    science (B.S.) or whatever, but we are facing a crisis here.
    And what we are looking at is, in some ways, subsets of who
    does what where. I think I am confused between your use of the
    terms ``military nurses'' and ``civilian nurses.'' Do you have
    civilian nurses?
        General Brannon. We do, indeed, and they are not all
    baccalaureate.
        Senator Mikulski. What do they do?
        General Brannon. They provide nursing care in many of our
    areas, and, as I mentioned, primarily in some of the areas
    where there are critical specialties where experience makes a
    big difference.
        Senator Mikulski. I am going to jump in. I know our time is
    short, but I do not think we understand it. I am new to this
    subcommittee. It is a spectacular subcommittee with astounding
    leadership, and on the 60th anniversary of the Victory in
    Europe (VE) Day, we know we want to salute these guys here, one
    who will forever remember the battle of Monte Cassino.
        But what we are seeing is different pay, and even among all
    of you, different deployment schedules. Then the use of nurses,
    both the military nurses and the civilian nurses. I wonder if
    you could submit to me and to the subcommittee kind of a chart
    on some of these issues as we look at it and then maybe perhaps
    a comparison to VA and other Federal counterparts so we can
    work with you on what we need to do to help you and also then
    to sort out where other talent could be used in the military
    but not at this highly unsophisticated level.
        [The information follows:]

                             Pay Scale Comparisons

        The chart below compares the civilian pay grades assigned
    to inpatient registered nurses at a representative sample of
    our medical treatment facilities (MTFs). The MTFs queried all
    Bachelor of Science in Nursing requirements for their civilian
    nursing staff. Contract employees may hold an Associate Degree
    in Nursing if it is written into the contract. Eglin AFB and
    Wilford Hall Medical Center pay the standard General Schedule
    (GS) rate while other locations are authorized locality pay.
    The civilian pay rates were obtained from Salary.com and are
    current as of June 1, 2005.
        The grade for our nursing positions is predetermined;
    however, the VA does not advertise positions in the same
    manner. Each successful applicant is reviewed by a Nursing
    Professional Standards Board to determine grade and salary
    based on the individual's education and experience. Once the
    grade is determined, the pay scale for that particular locality
    is used. As a result, the VA rates could not be included.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Civilian--Local
                Location                           Facility                      GS Level/Pay              Pay
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anchorage, AK..................  Elmendorf AFB......................  GS 9 ($50,476)...........          $67,757
    Dayton, OH.....................  Wright-Patterson AFB...............  GS 11 ($54,389)..........          $57,299
    Pensacola, FL..................  Eglin AFB..........................  GS 11 ($57,000)..........          $51,694
    San Antonio, TX................  Wilford Hall Medical Center........  GS 11 ($53,841)..........          $53,306
    San Francisco, CA..............  David Grant Medical Center.........  GS 9 ($49,841)...........          $66,352
                                     ...................................  GS 10 ($54,886)..........  ...............
    Washington DC..................  Malcolm Grow Medical Center........  GS 11 ($55,652)..........          $59,941
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Mikulski. I just say to my colleagues and to
    everyone listening, starting on page 4 is Major General
    Brannon's story about these thousands of flights that you have
    made and how they made a difference. So let us just kind of
    work together, but we have got a very big job.
        Good luck to you, Admiral. So you are going to be running
    TRICARE.
        Admiral Lescavage. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that is called jumping out of the
    fat and into the fire.
        Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        I thank you very much for your testimony. Senator Mikulski
    is right. We all remember your services very well from our days
    in World War II. It is a few days after the 60th anniversary.
    So none of you were there, but we thank you anyway for being
    part of the group that helped us so much. We look forward to
    working with you in trying to find additional ways to give
    incentives for your recruitment. Thank you very much.
        Colonel Bruno. Thank you, sir.
        Admiral Lescavage. Thank you, sir.
        General Brannon. Thank you, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

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

                           SUPPORTING TRANSFORMATION

        Question. Would each of you please describe some of the new
    technologies and tactics that have proven most effective in caring for
    our front line troops?
        Answer. The adoption of new trauma doctrine, called Tactical Combat
    Casualty Care (TC\3\), has incorporated additional emphasis on care far
    forward, be it self aid, buddy aid, or medic aid. With an emphasis on
    early intervention, this doctrinal change has had a significant effect
    in reducing deaths and limiting subsequent necessary treatment and
    rehabilitation. This doctrine is empowered through the use of new
    products, such as tourniquets, hemostatic bandages, and the newly
    reconfigured first aid kit.
        Another doctrinal change over the past several years has been the
    speedy removal of patients through evacuation chains to definitive care
    within our medical centers and hospital in Europe and the United
    States. There are definitive benefits to the patient who can begin
    treatment routines sooner, but it also reduces the medical footprint in
    theater and thereby medical Soldiers at risk. This doctrinal change
    could not have occurred without a broader scope of evacuation support
    medical devices, such as Codman neurological monitors, Chillbuster
    patient warmers, Belmont fluid warmers, or KCI wound vacuums.
        Question. What tools and equipment are still required to improve
    the care provided to combat casualties?
        Answer. A recent study of all available resuscitative fluids and
    volume expanders was concluded, and the study found the use of hextend
    as the most efficacious in clinical outcomes. This product is being
    worked into our Rapid Equipping Force Initiative for quick fielding to
    the theater for full scale adoption.
        The use of recombinant factor VII as a clotting agent for surgical
    patients as well as internal bleeding from blunt trauma could have an
    incredible effect. This product, which is approved in Europe, is in a
    Phase III clinical trial for a trauma indication and if successful, it
    will be rushed to full scale use. Because it does not have FDA
    approval, it is only used in an off-label, compassionate manner which
    limits its potential value.
        Oxygen remains a consistent treatment component of combat casualty
    care, and many actions are being taken to reduce the need for cylinders
    in theater. Today, oxygen is the largest logistical burden for the
    medics. In an adaptation of industrial oxygen generators, used for
    welding and manufacturing processes, new medical generators are being
    developed in smaller scale and greater oxygen content. This downsizing
    has gotten to the point that wards and operating room tables can be
    supported through these ambient air oxygen generators. Continued
    development is ongoing to reduce them to individual patient sizes that
    will support evacuation patients.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                        ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

        Question. I understand from your statements that you are diligently
    pursuing incidences of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety
    and post-traumatic stress disorder. I commend you for that. It is my
    understanding that to date the Department of Defense has done a good
    job reaching out to soldiers upon their return.
        My concern is for mental health services for rural Guard and Air
    Guard members in particular. Those Guardsmen in places like Springer,
    New Mexico are far from metropolitan areas and do not have access
    following demobilization to military mental treatment facilities with
    mental health services.
        I understand that this rural demographic is a small portion of your
    total population, but do you share my concerns about mental health
    access for rural Guard and Reserve members and if so can you give me
    your thoughts on how we might best address this issue?
        Answer. Providing mental health services for rural Guard and Air
    Guard members is a recognized challenge. Reserve component Soldiers,
    who have been activated, are entitled to all of the behavioral health
    services offered to active duty personnel. After demobilization,
    reserve component Soldiers are entitled to the TRICARE benefit for six
    months. Veterans who have served in OEF/OIF are entitled to care at the
    Veterans' Administration for two years. However, rural Reserve
    component soldiers may not live near military or VA providers. The
    Military One Source program was developed in October 2003 for Soldiers
    and Army civilians redeploying from combat. It includes a 24-hour,
    seven-days-a-week toll-free phone information and referral telephone
    service and a website with links to information and assistance.
    Initially developed by the Army for both active and reserve component
    Soldiers and family members worldwide, it has now been adopted by the
    Department of Defense for all service members, families, and civilian
    employees. In January 2005, the Department of Defense announced a Post-
    Deployment Health Reassessment to screen all Soldiers 90 to 180 days
    after deployment. One of the reasons for this additional screening is
    that many Soldiers will not recognize or report mental health symptoms
    at the time they return home, but may later. These reassessments are
    scheduled to begin on September 1, 2005.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              ANTHRAX VACCINATIONS

        Question. Pursuant to the order of a federal district court, the
    anthrax vaccination program has been suspended. However, this past
    December Secretary Wolfowitz requested an emergency authorization to
    resume use of the anthrax vaccine. Considering all the documented
    health risks, does the panel feel it is in the best interest of the
    military to resume vaccinating our troops? And why?
        Answer. Anthrax spores can kill or incapacitate American troops if
    used against us as a weapon. It is clearly in the best interests of our
    troops to use the only round-the-clock protection available against
    this lethal threat. The sudden deaths from inhalation anthrax among
    U.S. Postal Workers and other Americans during the fall 2001 anthrax
    attacks on Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy and other targets
    demonstrate how easy it is for people to breath in anthrax spores
    without realizing they have been exposed. In April 2002, the National
    Academy of Sciences released a Congressionally commissioned report that
    reviewed all available scientific evidence and heard from people
    concerned about anthrax vaccine. The National Academy of Sciences then
    concluded that the anthrax vaccine licensed by the Food and Drug
    Administration protects against all forms of anthrax and is as safe as
    other vaccines.

                          COMBAT STRESS CONTROL TEAMS

        Question. General Kiley, in your testimony you state there are a
    wide array of mental health assets in theater including Combat Stress
    Control teams and other personnel assigned to units and hospitals. Can
    you provide some numbers and tell us how many teams and personnel make
    up this program? Are there any current plans to increase your numbers
    of mental health assets in theater?
        Answer. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, combat
    stress units and other mental health assets have been deployed into
    theater. Personnel include psychiatrists, psychologists, social
    workers, psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists and enlisted
    technicians. As well as the combat stress control teams, there are
    mental health assets organic to the division and combat surgical
    hospitals. They work in close conjunction with the chaplains. The
    combat stress teams work closely with leaders and Soldiers to help them
    cope with both the stresses of combat and the challenges of being away
    from families for long periods of time. Their role is to provide
    education, preventive services, and restoration and treatment services.
    Typical educational activities include combat and operational stress
    control and suicide prevention classes, and preparation for reunion
    with their families. Clinical work includes individual and group
    evaluation and treatment. There are 10 combat stress control teams in
    theater, with a total of 224 mental health personnel. This number is
    appropriate for the number of U.S. forces deployed in the CENTCOM
    Theater. To add more to the theater would not add significant benefit
    and would detract from the staff available in CONUS and OCONUS
    providing care to other Soldiers and their families.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. In your testimony, General Kiley, you note that you are
    concerned about the retention of health care professionals and that you
    are working with the Commander of Army Recruiting to reverse the
    current trends. How far from your desired retention and recruiting rate
    are you currently? What steps are you taking to address the situation?
        Answer. The Global War on Terrorism and Army transformation make
    recruitment and retention of Army Medical Department personnel
    challenging. Transformation has provided a new set of requirements
    which, given the long training tail for medical personnel, cannot be
    immediately met through recruitment and student programs. The only way
    to meet this need, in the near term, is to retain individuals to fill
    these positions. At the same time, members of the Army Medical
    Department have some of the most ``exportable'' skills in the Army and
    some skills, like the Nurse, are in short supply and high demand in the
    civilian market place. The lure of lucrative employment coupled with no
    deployments is having its effect on retention. A comparison of three
    year average continuation rates for 1999 to 2001 (pre 9/11) against
    2002 to 2004 shows significant changes. At the 7th year of service,
    Nurses are down from 87 percent to 84 percent and at the 5th year, 93
    percent to 90 percent; Physician Assistants have demonstrated a
    remarkable drop in the 12th, 13th and 14th year of service (92 percent
    to 76 percent, 85 percent to 77 percent and 88 percent to 72 percent
    respectively).
        Direct accessions of medical personnel have also proved to be
    challenging. The chart below shows current fiscal year 2005 recruitment
    for both Active and Reserve component medical personnel.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Active Duty     Percent     Army Reserve    Percent   National Guard   Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Medical Corps................  18 of 40.........       45  64 of 201........       32  12 of 104.......       12
    Dental Corps.................  10 of 30.........       33  7 of 48..........       15  0 of 32.........  .......
    Nurse Corps..................  75 of 170........       40  225 of 485.......       46  13 of 55........       24
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The backbone of medical recruiting is our student programs
    (scholarships and stipends). Recruitment for these student programs is
    more difficult than expected. The Army has requested additional Health
    Professions Scholarship Program allocations. We believe that these
    additional scholarships are needed and as individual influencers learn
    that more scholarships are available, they will be filled by quality
    individuals who will shape the medical department of the future.
        Increases in Incentive Special Pays, Accession Bonuses, Loan
    Repayment Programs and other incentive pays are all tools which can be
    utilized by the recruiters and Commanders to influence recruitment and
    retention decisions. In February 2005, the Army increased Incentive
    Special Pays for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists retroactive to
    January 1, 2005. As of June 2005, 88 percent of the eligible Nurse
    Anesthetists elected to sign a new Incentive Special Pay contract.
    Twenty-two percent of these nurses opted for 1-year contracts and 78
    percent opted for multi-year contracts.
        The Surgeon General approved the utilization of Active Duty Health
    Professions Loan Repayment as an accession tool to assist U.S. Army
    Recruiting Command (USAREC) in meeting their recruitment mission for
    Physician's Assistants in fiscal year 2006. This will be the first year
    that USAREC has been tasked to directly recruit Physician's Assistants.
    Anecdotal evidence suggests that the ability to offer recent graduates
    from civilian Physician's Assistants programs the opportunity to have
    the Army assist in the repayment of their educational loans will make a
    difference in their propensity to serve. This is a new program for this
    group; however it has proven to be very successful with Pharmacy
    officers and Registered Nurses in the past.
        Finally, USAREC signed a contract with Merritt Hawkins in June 2005
    for a 6-month trial period to recruit Army Reserve Physicians. Merritt
    Hawkins is the top-ranked civilian Healthcare Professional recruiting
    firm in the country. The trial period is to run from July to December
    2005.

                              ANTHRAX VACCINATIONS

        Question. During the height of the Iraq invasion, concern, and more
    specifically controversy, surrounded vaccinating our armed forces for
    anthrax. This debate has not died down. The FDA has reported that there
    are over 50 side effects to the anthrax vaccination, and this is taking
    into account that former FDA Director David Kessler has stated that
    only 10 percent of reactions ever get reported. In 1998 the former
    Secretary of the Army Luis Caldera acknowledged the anthrax vaccine was
    linked to ``unusually hazardous risks.'' There have been documented
    cases of DOD continuing shots after major reactions, which violates
    vaccine instruction and documented cases of DOD administering shots
    from expired lots. Further, Senate Report 103-97 stated that the
    vaccine has still not been eliminated as a cause of the Gulf War
    Syndrome. In the past 5 years, thousands of cases of adverse reactions,
    causing serious health problems, have been linked to the anthrax
    vaccine. Several soldiers have even died from the shots. In light of
    the inherent risks in the program, I would appreciate hearing the
    panels' views as to why are we still mandating that our servicemembers
    receive these shots?
        Answer. Anthrax spores can kill or incapacitate American troops if
    used against us as a weapon. It is clearly in the best interests of our
    troops to use the only round-the-clock protection available against
    this lethal threat. The sudden deaths from inhalation anthrax among
    U.S. Postal Workers and other Americans during the fall 2001 anthrax
    attacks on Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy and other targets
    demonstrate how easy it is for people to breath in anthrax spores
    without realizing they have been exposed.
        In April 2002, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a
    Congressionally commissioned report that reviewed all available
    scientific evidence and heard from people concerned about anthrax
    vaccine. The National Academy of Sciences then concluded that the
    anthrax vaccine licensed by the Food and Drug Administration protects
    against all forms of anthrax and is as safe as other vaccines.
        While some individuals have expressed concern about anthrax
    vaccine, a detailed analysis of 34 peer-reviewed medical journal
    articles shows that people vaccinated or unvaccinated against anthrax
    have the same health experiences. It is well recognized that minor
    temporary side effects are underreported (which is the point Dr.
    Kessler was making); however, serious adverse events are reported,
    especially in a well-monitored integrated health system, such as the
    Military Health System.
        With reference to adverse events, Defense policy requires anyone
    who presents to medical personnel with a significant adverse health
    condition after receiving any vaccination (e.g., anthrax, smallpox,
    typhoid) to be evaluated by a physician to provide all necessary care
    for that event. The physician must determine whether further doses of
    that vaccine should be given, delayed, or a medical exemption--either
    temporary or permanent--be granted. Military medical personnel are
    trained how to manage perceived or actual adverse events after
    vaccination with any vaccine.
        As of July 2005, anthrax vaccinations are voluntary, under an
    Emergency Use Authorization issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
        As for links between anthrax vaccinations and illnesses among Gulf
    War veterans, two publications by the civilian Anthrax Vaccine Expert
    Committee concluded that multi-symptom syndromes among some veterans of
    the Persian Gulf War were not reported more often among anthrax
    vaccines than expected by chance. As explained in these articles, the
    vast majority of adverse-event reports involve temporary symptoms that
    resolve on their own. While one death has been classified as
    ``possibly'' related to a set of vaccinations, these civilian
    physicians did not attribute other reported deaths to anthrax
    vaccination.
        Secretary Caldera's actions are quoted out of context. His finding
    related to the risks to the manufacturing enterprise (the only
    manufacturer licensed by the Food and Drug Administration to produce
    anthrax vaccine) if the manufacturer was subjected to multiple
    lawsuits. He was not referring to the risks of the vaccine itself. In a
    Congressionally commissioned report, the National Academy of Sciences
    concluded in April 2002 that anthrax vaccine is as safe as other
    vaccines.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                               SUICIDE PREVENTION

        Question. What is the process for assuring our troops and their
    leadership are well trained in suicide prevention and intervention
    protocols as they relate to both the peacetime and wartime missions?
        Answer. Suicide prevention is a Commander's program. The proponent
    for the program to include training is Army G-1. In general, Army units
    typically have an annual requirement to conduct suicide prevention
    training. This is usually conducted by installation Chaplains or
    Behavioral Health personnel. Many units and installations sponsor
    Applied Suicide Intervention Training (ASIST) that provides specific
    intervention skills to noncommissioned officer leadership and selected
    Soldiers. Formal investigations are done after every active duty
    suicide focusing on lessons learned and prevention. Additional training
    is also provided to support agency staff, including Chaplains and
    healthcare providers, on how to identify signs of suicide and how to
    effectively screen and intervene with service members who are having
    suicidal thoughts. Leaders, both officer and non-commissioned officers,
    receive training on how to take care of their troops in the area of
    suicide.

                               HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

        Question. How does the AMEDD determine if soldiers are both
    psychologically and physically healthy enough to be deployed? What
    improvements should be made in the current pre-deployment evaluation?
        Answer. The Pre-Deployment Health Assessments (DD 2795) falls
    within the overall framework of Force Health Protection, which provides
    comprehensive health surveillance. All Soldiers identified as having
    psychological and/or physical health related concerns are screened by
    medical personnel for further evaluation. Medical personnel make
    recommendations to Commanders concerning whether or not Soldiers are
    healthy enough for deployment. Identifying Soldiers who are at risk for
    physical injury before deployment is an area for improvement in pre-
    deployment evaluation. In addition, an annual preventive health
    assessment has been developed and will be fielded in the coming year.
    This annual requirement specifically includes assessment of domains
    relevant to medical readiness, both physical and psychological. The
    implementation of this annual assessment will help to maintain the
    health of our troops across the deployment cycle, not just immediately
    before.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. You have been working for four years with congressional
    support to develop a robust, mobile hospital solution to replace the
    Deployable Medical Systems you've had in place for nearly thirty years
    now. With the research and development phase of this work now near its
    end, is it not time to move this effort to the next stage and develop a
    procurement program for these hard-shelled, mobile hospital units?
        Answer. The research and development phase has not been completed
    for hard wall shelters. In fact, the Army only recently received just
    one set of first prototype shelters with the most recent being provide
    in the spring of this year. Though the shelters exhibit promise, there
    are some shortcomings from our initial review and have yet to gather
    the most meaningful data, operational user tests. At this moment, there
    are two competing designs at work with an expected down select in the
    late fiscal year 2006, early fiscal year 2007 timeframe. We anticipate
    that the Army will find separate technologies within each prototype
    system that has value and will compete a requirement that builds upon
    combined characteristics. At present, the further developmental and
    procurement quantities have been programmed as requirements into our
    budget, but higher priority requirements preclude its funding at this
    point in time.

                          COMPOSITE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

        Question. I have followed the evolution of CHCS II and Tricare
    Online with interest, and it strikes me that there is a confluence of
    maturing technologies that can be leveraged to empower the patient to
    improve health care quality while reducing health care costs. If
    Department of Defense servicemembers and beneficiaries are given the
    ability to securely enter data about themselves and their medical
    problems into CHCS II via Tricare Online, it will solve a huge problem
    facing the military health system, namely how to get standardized
    clinical information into the medical record without using expensive
    and scarce medical personnel. Physicians would get better information
    about their patients, and patients would get immediate guidance from
    the tools mounted on Tricare Online to help them with their problems. I
    know there are knowledge tools in CHCS II, but I would like each of you
    to comment on any plans your service has to offer them to beneficiaries
    on Tricare Online. What are your thoughts about using Tricare Online to
    help populate subjective clinical information into CHCS II?
        Answer. The Health Assessment Review Tool (HART) and Personal
    Health Record (PHR) are two such tools that are projected for a TOL
    interface with CHCS II. A web-enabled HART is by far the most effective
    and efficient method of making HART available to all populations
    (TRICARE Standard, TRICARE Prime, Reserve/National Guard, civilian
    employees of DOD activities). The successful implementation of this
    web-enabled functionality is a positive step toward empowering the
    patient to participate in his or her own heath care.
        The E-Health Personal Health Record (PHR), accessible via TOL,
    addresses the Military Health System's (MHS) need for a secure portal
    for beneficiaries to access their electronic medical record. The MHS is
    working with commercial organizations and the Veterans Health
    Administration to define optimal business processes and to develop
    industry leading functional and technical requirements. This structured
    response capability is scheduled for deployment in fiscal year 2008,
    capabilities will allow the patient to review or enter allergies, past
    medical history and to review test results and other information that
    must be either posted or verified by the medical staff. This will help
    to ensure that the information was received by the patient and prevent
    unnecessary visits to check lab results that were normal.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                         POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        Question. The New York Times recently reported that an Army study
    shows that about one in six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major
    depression, serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a
    proportion that some experts believe could eventually climb to one in
    three, the rate ultimately found in Vietnam veterans. (NY Times, Dec.
    16, 2004). (Reference for the above Army study is: New England Journal
    of Medicine, Vol. 351, No. 1, pg. 13).
        According to the Times and the Army report, ``through the end of
    September, the Army had evacuated 885 troops from Iraq for psychiatric
    reasons, including some who had threatened or tried suicide. But those
    are only the most extreme cases. Often, the symptoms of post-traumatic
    stress disorder do not emerge until months after discharge''. (NY
    Times, Dec. 16, 2004).
        The Times also referenced a report by the GAO that found similarly
    alarming results: ``A September report by the Government Accountability
    Office found that officials at six of seven Veterans Affairs medical
    facilities surveyed said they `may not be able to meet' increased
    demand for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.'' (NY Times,
    Dec. 16, 2004).
        However, despite this well-documented crisis, I am concerned that
    we are not doing enough to combat PTSD.
        In light of these very serious concerns, what is the Department of
    Defense doing to address well-documented examples of PTSD in our men
    and women returning from the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and
    elsewhere?
        Answer. The Department of the Army complies with a series of
    Department of Defense policies which govern the Pre- and Post-
    Deployment Health Assessment process. A February 2002 Joint Staff
    Policy details the procedures for Deployment Health Surveillance and
    Readiness. The Pre- and Post-Deployment Health Assessments (DD 2795 and
    DD 2796) are designed to provide comprehensive health surveillance for
    service members affected by deployments. The overarching goal of the
    Army is to provide countermeasures against potential health and
    environmental hazards to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    for optimal protection to our troops. Early detection and management of
    all deployment-related health concerns, including PTSD, can reduce
    long-term negative health consequences and improve the quality of life
    for those with deployment concerns. All Soldier's identified with PTSD
    and/or other mental health symptoms are referred to mental health
    providers for further evaluation and follow-up. The Post-Deployment
    Health Assessment provides ongoing identification and management of
    later emerging deployment health concerns. Copies of all Pre- and Post-
    Deployment forms are kept in a central database at the U.S. Army
    Medical Surveillance Activity.
        This system of identification and treatment is being further
    enhanced through implementation of a Post-Deployment Health
    Reassessment to be conducted at the 3-6 month period after service
    members return from an operational deployment. This program will
    provide an opportunity for identification and treatment of health
    concerns, including mental health concerns, that emerge over time. In
    addition, DOD and VA have also collaborated in the development and
    dissemination of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for
    identification and treatment of acute stress and PTSD in both primary
    care and specialty mental health care settings.The guideline supports
    the Post Deployment Health Evaluation and Management Clinical Practice
    Guideline that was fielded for mandatory implementation in every
    military primary care clinic in 2003. Because PTSD is not the only
    mental health concern resulting from deployment and because PTSD is
    often related to physical health symptoms, additional guidelines have
    been developed and disseminated throughout the military health system
    to include a DOD/VA Clinical Practice Guideline for Major Depression,
    Substance Use Disorder, and Ill-defined conditions and concerns.
        Question. Are clinical trials being conducted in conjunction with
    our nation's pharmaceutical industry?
        Answer. The Army Medical Department is not currently conducting
    clinical trials in conjunction with the pharmaceutical industry.
        Question. Is the Department aware that there exists a not-for-
    profit organization in Maryland that is committed to pulling together
    all developing new technologies for the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. The Army is aware that the Department of Defense, in
    collaboration with the Department of Veteran's Affairs, has contracted
    with the Samueli Institute for Information Biology (SIIB) to conduct
    the program entitled Integrative Healing Practices for Veterans (VET
    HEAL). SIIB is a non-profit, non-affiliated medical research
    organization, based in Maryland, supporting the scientific
    investigation of healing processes with Information Biology and its
    application in health and disease.
        Question. What is the Department doing to identify these and other
    innovative approaches to the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. The Army Medical Department, in conjunction with the
    Department of Defense and the members of the National Center for PTSD
    partnered to develop The Iraq War Clinician Guide, which is now in its
    second edition (June 2004). This guide was developed specifically for
    clinicians and addresses the unique needs of veterans of the Iraq war.
    Topics include information about the management of PTSD in the primary
    care setting, caring for veterans who have been sexually assaulted, and
    the unique psychological needs of the amputee patient. Similarly, the
    Veterans Health Administration and the military services developed the
    VA/DOD clinical practice guideline for the management of post-traumatic
    stress. In addition, the Department of Defense has partnered with the
    Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct two randomized clinical
    trials, including one focused on effective treatment for military women
    and one focused on prevention and education for early intervention
    through a technology enhanced program called DESTRESS. These studies
    aid us in ensuring our treatments are the most effective they can be
    and they are provided at the appropriate time. DOD and VA have also
    collaborated in the development and dissemination of an evidence-based
    clinical practice guideline for identification and treatment of acute
    stress and PTSD in both primary care and specialty mental health care
    settings.The guideline supports the Post Deployment Health Evaluation
    and Management Clinical Practice Guideline that was fielded for
    mandatory implementation in every military primary care clinic in 2003.
                                     ______

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

                           SUPPORTING TRANSFORMATION

        Question. Would each of you please describe some of the new
    technologies and tactics that have proven most effective in caring for
    our front line troops?
        Answer. The Navy is involved in the following projects and programs
    to care for our front line troops:
      --The introduction of Body Armor, the Forward Resuscitative Surgical
            System, and reduced evacuation times has had a substantial
            impact in reducing members killed in action (KIA) compared to
            prior conflicts.
      --The introduction of Quikclot for controlling hemorrhage.
      --Fielding of a Patient Tracking Device in OIF and OEF, the Tactical
            Medical Coordination System (TacMedCS).
      --Combat Trauma Registry (CTR). This registry has made a major
            contribution to understanding of casualties. Data summarized
            from the CTR forms have been used in theater to provide medical
            situation updates. The CTR is being used for ongoing studies
            and analyses which include: head, neck and face injury study,
            extremity injury study, and shunt efficacy study.
      --Field Oxygen Concentration Units, reducing need for cylinders.
      --EnRoute Care System--the supplies, equipment and personnel
            available to use any mobility platform to transport critically
            injured casualties.
      --Improved Medical Diagnostic Capabilities in Field of Operations:
            Digital Radiography.
      --Individual First Aid Kit (IFAK), (including tourniquets and
            advanced compression dressings for self and buddy aid).
      --Improved First Responder Aid Bag.
      --OSCAR (Operational Stress Control and Relief) to Reduce Combat
            Stress.
      --New Seats Installed in the Small Special Operations Boats (should
            reduce injuries to operating personnel through greater shock
            absorption).
      --Use of a Centralized Computer System to Collect Heat Stress Data on
            Ships (should reduce the incidence of heat injury and reduce
            work load. Also has land-based applications).
      --Improved Methods of Rapidly Gathering and Assessing Lessons Learned
            Data from ongoing experiences linkage to off-the-shelf
            solutions/ideas for providing care to front line troops.
        The Marine Corps has introduced new technologies and tactics to
    improve first responder care, resuscitative surgery, and patient
    evacuation with enroute care.
      --First responder care. Marines from I MEF and II MEF have received
            Combat Lifesaver Training to enhance their ability to provide
            self-aid and buddy aid. These Marines also received a new
            Individual First Aid Kit (IFAK) to improve their ability to
            stop life-threatening bleeding. The new IFAK includes a
            hemostatic agent (QuikClot), a new tourniquet, and improved
            battle dressings.
      --Resuscitative Surgery. The Marine Corps has successfully used the
            Forward Resuscitative Surgery System (FRSS) to provide life-
            saving surgery far forward on the battlefield. The FRSS has
            demonstrated the potential of far forward resuscitative surgery
            to reduce battlefield mortality among the most seriously
            wounded.
      --Patient evacuation with Enroute Care. The Marine Corps has also
            successfully used specially trained nurses and hospital
            corpsmen to provide enroute care during the evacuation of
            critically injured casualties onboard its helicopters.
            Providing enroute care for these critically injured casualties
            has contributed to reducing battlefield mortality.
        Question. What tools and equipment are still required to improve
    the care provide to combat casualties?
        Answer. While the number of Killed in Action has been greatly
    reduced by the aforementioned capabilities. Much work is need now for
    those who are wounded in action.
      --Improved Body Armor for extremities.
      --Treatments to prevent/treat blast trauma and long term neurological
            deficits resulting from exposure to blast.
      --Research on Combat and Operational Stress to include enhanced
            research on Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD).
      --Blood substitutes and improved resuscitation strategies.
      --Technologies to stop internal hemorrhage.
      --Technologies to sustain life support and reduce logistical burden
            during delayed/prolonged evacuation.
      --Technologies to treat brain injury.
      --Technologies to improve limb and organ viability from trauma.
      --Microbiology of blast and bullet injuries in returning troops.
      --Research on Musculoskeletal Injuries (including epidemiology,
            prevention, and footwear).
      --Research on Effectiveness of Current Body Armor (i.e., how many
            casualties prevented).
      --Research on the Causes and Prevention of Motor Vehicle Accidents
            (almost 10 percent of casualties resulting from hostile enemy
            action were due to motor vehicle accidents).
      --Improved Medical Diagnostic Capabilities in Field of operations.
      --Improved Bioenvironmental Tools for Operational Risk Management and
            Deployment of Medical Resources and Identification of Routes of
            Evacuation.
      --Research on the Impact of Multiple Stressors (Noise, Heat, Chemical
            Exposure, etc.) on Recuperation of Casualties.
      --Development of Antioxidant Treatment Protocols for Laser Eye
            Injuries.
      --The Submarine Force Needs Better Casualty Movement and Evacuation
            Equipment for casualty transfer and MEDEVAC. Currently
            available stretchers and evacuation equipment do not permit
            rapid movement of casualties in and out of the tight confines
            of submarines.
      --Anti-Hypothermia Warming Blankets.
      --Improved Non-Performance Degrading Analgesia.
      --Improved Means for Combat Medic Training.
      --Easy to Use Vascular Shunts for Limb Salvage.
      --Research on Use of Antioxidant Supplementation for Performance
            Enhancement and Rehabilitation.
      --Research on Development of Back Packs to Transfer Load Carriage
            From the Shoulders to the Hips to Reduce Injuries.
      --Research to Reduce Concussive Injury from Blast and Bullet Strikes
            to the Head.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                                ANTHRAX VACCINE

        Question. During the height of the Iraq invasion, concern, and more
    specifically controversy, surrounded vaccinating our armed forces for
    Anthrax. This debate has not died down. The FDA has reported that there
    are over 50 side effects to the Anthrax vaccination, and this is taking
    into account that former FDA Director David Kessler has stated that
    only 10 percent of reactions ever get reported. In 1998 the former
    Secretary of the Army Luis Caldera acknowledged the Anthrax vaccine was
    linked to ``unusually hazardous risks.'' There have been documented
    cases of DOD continuing shots after major reactions, which violates
    vaccine instruction and documented cases of DOD administering shots
    from expired lots. Further, Senate Report 103-97 stated that the
    vaccine has still not been eliminated as a cause of the Gulf War
    Syndrome. In the past 5 years, thousands of cases of adverse reactions,
    causing serious health problems, have been linked to the Anthrax
    vaccine. Several soldiers have even died from the shots. In light of
    the inherent risks in the program, I would appreciate hearing the
    panels' views as to why are we still mandating that our service members
    receive these shots?
        Answer. DOD's mandatory Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program is
    currently on a court-ordered pause. We are offering the Anthrax vaccine
    to personnel in high threat areas under an Emergency Use Authorization.
        Anthrax is the #1 threat on the Joint Chiefs bioweapon threat list.
    Anthrax spores make lethal weapons that can be easily disseminated
    through non-traditional means. This was demonstrated in the 2001
    Anthrax attacks, which killed several U.S. Postal Employees. Reports
    continue to be published in newspapers about the attack's infected
    survivors and their persistent health consequences. During the Anthrax
    attacks, city hospitals had only one or two patients requiring
    extensive and lengthy treatment for their illness. In a widespread
    attack, the number of patients requiring hospitalization would
    overwhelm the medical infrastructure. The Department of Defense uses
    Anthrax vaccine to ensure service members are protected against an
    attack using Anthrax.
        Over 1.3 million service members have been protected against
    Anthrax spores since March 1998. While some individuals have expressed
    concern about Anthrax vaccine, a detailed review of 34 peer-reviewed
    medical journal articles shows that people vaccinated or unvaccinated
    against Anthrax have similar health experiences. In 2002, the National
    Academy of Sciences published a congressionally commissioned report
    that concluded Anthrax vaccine has a side-effect profile similar to
    that of other vaccines licensed by the Food and Drug Administration
    [www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/4/150/0.pdf]. DOD policy requires that
    anyone who develops adverse health conditions after any vaccination be
    evaluated by a physician. This policy also specifies that all necessary
    care be provided and that a determination be made as to whether further
    doses of that vaccine are indicated. It is well recognized that minor
    temporary side effects are underreported, which is the point Dr.
    Kessler was making. Serious adverse events are much more likely to be
    reported, especially in a well-monitored integrated health system, such
    as the Military Health System.
        The civilian Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee (AVEC) issued two
    publications regarding adverse vaccine events that occurred from 1998-
    2001 with respect to multi-symptom syndrome (MSS) described by some
    veterans of the Persian Gulf war. The panel found no evidence of a
    pattern of MSS after Anthrax vaccination. As explained in these
    publications, the vast majority of vaccine adverse-event reports
    involve temporary symptoms that resolve on their own.
        DOD reviews death reports after any vaccination very carefully. One
    death of a DOD service member has been classified as ``possibly''
    related to the receipt of multiple (Anthrax, Smallpox and others)
    immunizations. The civilian physicians on AVEC evaluated other deaths
    and did not attribute them to Anthrax vaccination.
        The question for the record misstates the former Secretary of the
    Army's position, which was the business situation posed an unusually
    hazardous risk for BioPort Corporation as a small vaccine manufacturer.
        At no time has anyone shipped expired lots or vials of Anthrax
    vaccine to any military facilities. However in an isolated case,
    Anthrax vaccine from vials a few weeks beyond their potency dating was
    inadvertently administered. This 1999 incident was thoroughly
    investigated and correct vaccine management procedures were re-
    emphasized to prevent future incidents.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                                    CHCS II

        Question. I have followed the evolution of CHCS II and TRICARE
    Online with interest, and it strikes me that there is a confluence of
    maturing technologies that can be leveraged to empower the patient to
    improve health care quality while reducing health care costs. If
    Department of Defense service members and beneficiaries are given the
    ability to securely enter data about themselves and their medical
    problems into CHCS II via TRICARE Online, it will solve a huge problem
    facing the military health system, namely how to get standardized
    clinical information into the medical record without using expensive
    and scarce medical personnel. Physicians would get better information
    about their patients, and patients would get immediate guidance from
    the tools mounted on TRICARE Online to help them with their problems. I
    know there are knowledge tools in CHCS II, but I would like each of you
    to comment on any plans your service has to offer them to beneficiaries
    on TRICARE Online. What are your thoughts about using TRICARE Online to
    help populate subjective clinical information into CHCS II?
        Answer. TRICARE Online (TOL) has the potential to provide our
    beneficiaries the ability to convey information about their health
    status and concerns to providers. Our vision is in line with this goal,
    a clinical intervention tool informing beneficiaries, Primary Care
    Managers (PCMs), and Military Treatment Facility (MTF) administrators
    about required preventive services, health risk factors, chronic
    disease history, and health status. This tool assists the MHS at the
    Enterprise, Service, TRICARE Region and MTF level with population
    health management by providing estimates of the health needs and health
    status of the enrolled and non-enrolled TRICARE populations. Currently
    in development are the appropriate screening tools and alert
    functionality to mitigate the medical-legal risk of not being able to
    respond to a concern ``real-time'' while empowering beneficiaries to
    enter historical and screening information at their own pace. This
    information will be saved to the Clinical Data Repository making the
    data accessible via CHCS II.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                MENTAL HEALTH AND POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        Question. The major mental health problem being faced by the
    returning veteran is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
        The New York Times recently reported that an Army study shows that
    about one in six soldiers in Iraq reports symptoms of major depression,
    serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that
    some experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate
    ultimately found in Vietnam veterans (NY Times, Dec. 16, 2004)
    (Reference for the above Army study is: New England Journal of
    Medicine, Vol. 351, No. 1, pg. 13).
        According to the Times and the Army report, ``through the end of
    September, the Army had evacuated 885 troops from Iraq for psychiatric
    reasons, including some who had threatened or tried suicide. But those
    are only the most extreme cases. Often, the symptoms of post-traumatic
    stress disorder do not emerge until months after discharge.'' (NY
    Times, Dec. 16, 2004).
        The Times also referenced a report by the GAO that found similarly
    alarming results: ``A September report by the Government Accountability
    Office found that officials at six of seven Veterans Affairs medical
    facilities surveyed said they `may not be able to meet' increased
    demand for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.'' (NY Times,
    Dec. 16, 2004).
        However, despite this well-documented crisis, I am concerned that
    we are not doing enough to combat PTSD.
        In light of these very serious concerns, what is the Department of
    Defense doing to address well-documented examples of PTSD in our men
    and women returning from the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and
    elsewhere?
        Answer. Navy medicine is directly involved in the management of
    PTSD both on the battlefield and at home. Last year, we initiated our
    Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) Project with the U.S.
    Marine Corps. This project places mental health assets directly with
    Marine Corps fighting units, and those mental health providers stay
    with the unit both during the period of deployment and in garrison.
    Thus, our Marine Corps mental health providers are truly organic assets
    to the Marine divisions. Likewise, we have psychologists stationed
    aboard each aircraft carrier in the Navy to provide direct services to
    deployed service members. Following on the highly successful example of
    our shipboard psychologists, we have deployed psychologists and
    psychiatrists with Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) to provide
    similar services to detachments of Marines and other service members
    being transported via ESGs.
        Question. Are clinical trials being conducted in conjunction with
    our nation's pharmaceutical industry?
        Answer. Medical Departments of the uniformed services do not work
    directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers as we are legally proscribed
    from doing so. However, under the auspices of the Henry M. Jackson
    Foundation, military researchers may participate as investigators in
    clinical trials with various sources of funding. Military medical
    personnel, both at the Uniformed Services University and at our
    teaching hospitals, may devise and submit for approval through
    appropriate institutional review boards clinical studies that involve
    post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions. Several joint
    projects with the VA are presently ongoing, including a study at Naval
    Medical Center San Diego of virtual reality technology to assist
    patients with PTSD.
        Question. Is the Department aware that there exists a not-for-
    profit organization in Maryland that is committed to pulling together
    all developing new technologies for the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. Yes. Several not-for-profit organizations exist in the
    State of Maryland that can and have in the past provided expert
    assistance to the DOD in its efforts to understand PTSD and ameliorate
    its effects. For instance, trainers from the International Critical
    Incident Stress Foundation, in Ellicott City, routinely provide
    training in critical incident stress debriefing gratis to military
    mental health providers and military first responders. The Maryland
    Psychological Association has offered the services of its members to
    family members of servicemen and women who may be suffering from the
    effects of combat stress or related disorders. Additionally, the
    Maryland Psychological Association partners with the American Red Cross
    to train its members in disaster response. The services take advantage
    of the expertise of faculty at the Uniformed Services University in
    Bethesda who are world renowned experts in the study of combat stress
    and related disorders, we apply their research findings in our clinical
    practice to better serve active duty members and their families. We
    also work closely with other agencies, both in the federal and private
    sector, such as the VA's National Centers for PTSD, to identify sources
    of expertise in the management of stress and apply findings to our
    service members.
        Question. What is the Department doing to identify these and other
    innovative approaches to the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. Navy medical resources are intensely involved in the study
    of innovative treatment strategies for PTSD. We work closely with our
    colleagues in the VA and at the Uniformed Services University, as well
    as various private and publicly funded institutions of higher
    education, to educate our providers regarding most effective
    treatments. In addition to collaboration in research endeavors as
    mentioned above, we have jointly produced with the VA a number of
    Clinical Practice Guidelines, including guidelines for the management
    of acute and chronic stress, depression, and other disorders. We co-
    sponsor conferences for our clinicians and decision makers regarding
    the management of PTSD, and are involved in a number of joint working
    groups designed to create a true continuum of mental health care for
    our active duty, disabled, and retired service members.
                                     ______

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

                           SUPPORTING TRANSFORMATION

        Question. Would each of you please describe some of the new
    technologies and tactics that have proven most effective in caring for
    our front line troops?
        Answer. The Air Force Medical Service has clearly played a
    tremendous role in the delivery of health care to our front line
    troops. To open, let me say that prevention has proven to be enormously
    successful in preventing injury and providing superb safe environments
    for our personnel. Our deployed Preventive Medicine Teams have provided
    direct preventive medicine support to military personnel throughout
    Operation Iraqi Freedom, providing such resources as occupational and
    environmental health surveillance, environmental health programs, field
    sanitation training, disease and non-battle injury prevention, health
    risk assessments, and medical force protection.
        The lighter, leaner footprint of Air Force medical resources has
    been extremely effective in providing a consistent clinical capability
    to the Combatant Commander and warfighter. The hard work accomplished
    with focus on interoperability in capability was proven a success
    during the transition from the Army Combat Support Hospital to the Air
    Force Expeditionary Medical System this past fall. Shortly after that
    transition, the vast majority of casualties from the battle of Fallujah
    were received and cared for at that very same facility. The dedication
    and teamwork of our Army and Air Force medics ensured seamless medical
    care, timely evacuation, and lifesaving care to the injured warfighter.
        In December of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health
    Affairs) directed the Services to implement the Joint Theater Trauma
    Registry. Air Force clinicians played a tremendous role in the
    development of the first Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS). Modeled
    after the successes of the civilian sector, the JTTS keeps us at the
    cutting edge, bringing the skills of trauma centers to the battlefield.
    The goal is to provide a system for routing casualties to destinations
    that are best able to provide the required care: ``The Right patient,
    to the Right place, at the Right time.''
        The employment of critical care capability during aeromedical
    transport and the role of evidence-based medical innovations have also
    been important. Our community has been aggressive in meeting the needs
    of the aeromedically evacuated critical care patients through
    implementation of new technology for intra-cranial pressure monitoring
    ensuring the safe transport of patients with head trauma, as well as
    the latest in pain management using the non-electronic Stryker Pain
    Pump. Additionally, the move to universally qualify aeromedical
    evacuation crew has further ensured the safe passage of our sick and
    injured.
        The Air Force Medical Service clearly plays a critical role in the
    delivery of health care to our front line troops. It has only been
    through the collaborative efforts between the medical and operations
    communities, multi-service and multi-national forces abroad that our
    delivery of health care during the most challenging of contingencies
    has become the best in the world.
        Question. What tools and equipment are still required to improve
    the care provided to combat casualties?
        Answer. Our medical forces are doing tremendous work in the
    delivery of health care to our front line troops and their experience
    provides us with valuable lessons learned. These lessons learned deal
    primarily with the tools and equipment still required to improve the
    care provided to combat casualties. Based on lessons learned, we still
    need solutions for the following requirements to provide the best
    combat casualty care possible. I would be happy to discuss these with
    you at your convenience in greater detail.
        Rapid diagnostics capabilities for deployed and homeland stationed
    medics: This shortfall includes deployment of systems similar to
    Epidemiology Outbreak Surveillance to rapidly diagnose emerging
    threats, as they happen to give commanders the information they need to
    preserve the fighting force through prevention and prophylaxis.
        Near real-time medical surveillance or environmental factors to
    include water sources: This capability enables monitoring of sources to
    allay the damage or illness from weapons of mass destruction.
        Water and Intravenous purification: Exploitation of current
    technology trends to allow on-site water purification to two standards,
    potable and infusion quality. This capability dramatically decreases
    the pallet space and logistical footprint needed to provide water to
    troops.
        Oxygenation capabilities integrated with Aeromedical Evacuation and
    Expeditionary Medical Support: There is an increasing need for deployed
    medical personnel to provide their own oxygen.
        Acute care and local extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to
    facilitate stabilization for transport of critically injured patients.
        Instant reach-back communications for facilitation of inter-service
    patient care coordination: There are considerable shortfalls in
    interoperability for rapid communication leading to delays in
    treatment, transport and communication of care rendered.
        Blood substitutes are needed to not only expand the fluid volume of
    injured patients but to also include increased oxygen carrying
    capability that standard volume expanders lack.
        Medical Scancorder development must be accomplished so that
    Soldiers and Airmen can be monitored for instability of vital signs/
    hemodynamics before they experience symptoms.
        Portable anesthesia is now limited by respirator availability or
    intravenous access; stable, simple and effective anesthesia devices are
    needed to allow humane and safe anesthesia to injured patients.
        Patient controlled anesthesia is the standard of care: This
    standard is not currently met by most equipment/personnel medical
    support packages deployed and on modes of transportation available for
    evacuation.
        Trauma registry information as required by DOD Health Affairs
    Policy #04-031: Non-technological solutions are being used, which
    hinders the evacuation and medical care of injured Soldiers and Airmen.
        Despite the challenges we face, it is my privilege to share
    successes of improved combat casualty. The proud men and women of the
    Air Force Medical Service have recently fielded Telehealth initiatives
    within the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), which provide reach-
    back via Telehealth consultations and Teleradiology. We have also
    provided telephonic FAX capabilities for asynchronous reach-back
    consultations. Pumpless extra-corporeal lung assist has been used to
    evacuate critically ill patients that formerly would have been too
    unstable to transport. And, based on the most recent recommendations
    from our surgeons who have seen large numbers of severe orthopedic
    injuries, the addition of pneumatic tourniquet systems for extremity
    surgery, and compartment pressure monitors to diagnose limb-threatening
    compartment syndrome are examples of improve combat care to our front
    line troops. However, there are more tools needed to achieve improved
    treatment outcomes based largely on lessons learned from the AOR.
        The management of shock is probably the most basic element of
    trauma care. The replacement of fluid, administration of blood
    products, and maintenance of the body at normal temperature are all key
    to this lifesaving process. The thromboelastography (TEG) analyzer is
    a powerful clinical monitor to evaluate the interaction of platelets
    and plasma factors, plus any additional effects of other cellular
    elements (e.g., WBCs, RBCs). To guide administration of blood products,
    TEG has been recommended by our trauma surgeons, as the analysis
    provided by this tool would clearly benefit the management of our
    critically injured casualties. Forced-air warming therapy has become
    the standard choice for preventing hypothermia. Maintaining patient
    normothermia is proven to reduce increased complications for the post-
    operative patient as well as the massive trauma patient. The Bair
    Hugger temperature management devices, such as the warming blanket and
    warming units, are those being specifically recommended for addition to
    the deployed inventory.
        There is currently discussion underway about having basic
    diagnostic cardiology in theater, such as a treadmill and
    echocardiogram capability. We are working with the Army and Navy,
    analyzing the benefits of accomplishing basic stress testing in
    theater, prior to evacuation, with the increased chance of returning
    more troops back to their unit rather than being evacuated to
    Landstuhl, Germany.
        Also critical to the effective management of patients is the
    continuity of information transfer. As casualties travel from the
    battlefield and through the military health care system, clinicians are
    known for writing on the dressings of casualties to ensure critical
    information goes with the patient and is readily accessible by all that
    will care for the casualty along the way. Use of the Battlefield
    Medical Information System, ``BMIST,'' has been initiated. This
    wireless electronic information carrier has been successful; however,
    the challenge has been to ensure that every field medic is issued the
    hand-held element so they can complete the casualty's electronic record
    on-site and be able to ``beam'' or give it on a memory chip to the air
    ambulance or aeromedical evacuation crew who can take it with the
    casualty on to their final destination.
        Finally, the challenges of communication between the multiple
    Service medical assets have unfortunately continued through the years.
    There is a wide array of communications tools and equipment among the
    different Services, each fulfilling their own requirements, but
    unfortunately most often not linking with the sister Services. While
    there are numerous initiatives underway addressing this very issue at
    the Joint and individual Service level, the critical key, as with every
    initiative regarding the management and care of our forces, is to
    ensure integration of these efforts.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                        ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

        Question. I understand from your statements that you are diligently
    pursuing incidences of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety
    and post-traumatic stress disorder. I commend you for that. It is my
    understanding that to date the Department of Defense has done a good
    job reaching out to soldiers upon their return.
        My concern is for mental health services for rural Guard and Air
    Guard members in particular. Those Guardsmen in places like Springer,
    New Mexico are far from metropolitan areas and do not have access
    following demobilization to military mental treatment facilities with
    mental health services.
        I understand that this rural demographic is a small portion of your
    total population, but do you share my concerns about mental health
    access for rural Guard and Reserve members and if so can you give me
    your thoughts on how we might best address this issue?
        Answer. Our best efforts address the concern by requiring all
    redeploying members to receive a medical screening to include mental
    health conditions by completing DD Form 2796, Post-Deployment Health
    Assessment prior to theater departure or within five days upon return
    to home station. This screening provides the first sign of the need for
    additional health care and prompt access to care within our Military
    Healthcare System.
        To aid continuity of care and address health conditions frequently
    identified several months following redeployment, Assistant Secretary
    of Defense (Health Affairs) recently announced an extension of the
    deployment health screening process projected to start June 10, 2005.
    Post-Deployment Health Reassessment will involve each member completing
    an additional health screening form three to six months following
    redeployment to specifically address mental and other health concerns.
    The member's responses in coordination with a healthcare provider's
    review will determine the need for additional care, which may then be
    obtained through TRICARE health system referral or through the Veterans
    Health Administration. Additional sources of care for mental health
    concerns in rural areas may include the local department of public
    health and safety and military Family Assistance Centers. In the
    National Guard, the Adjutant General determines the need and location
    of the Family Assistance Center in support of deployment activities,
    and the State Family Program Coordinator is the point of contact.
        Of note, Veterans who serve in a theater of combat operations
    during war are eligible for care for two years from their date of
    active duty discharge provided they first enroll in the Veterans Health
    Administration. Access to Veterans Health Administration-sponsored care
    is visible at: http://www1.va.gov/directory/guide/home.asp?isFlash=1.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              ANTHRAX VACCINATION

        Question. During the height of the Iraq invasion, concern, and more
    specifically controversy, surrounded vaccinating our armed forces for
    anthrax. This debate has not died down. The FDA has reported that there
    are over 50 side effects to the anthrax vaccination, and this is taking
    into account that former FDA Director David Kessler has stated that
    only 10 percent of reactions ever get reported. In 1998 the former
    Secretary of the Army Luis Caldera acknowledged the anthrax vaccine was
    linked to ``unusually hazardous risks.'' There have been documented
    cases of DOD continuing shots after major reactions, which violates
    vaccine instruction and documented cases of DOD administering shots
    from expired lots. Further, Senate Report 103-97 stated that the
    vaccine has still not been eliminated as a cause of the Gulf War
    Syndrome. In the past 5 years, thousands of cases of adverse reactions,
    causing serious health problems, have been linked to the anthrax
    vaccine. Several soldiers have even died from the shots. In light of
    the inherent risks in the program, I would appreciate hearing the
    panels' views as to why are we still mandating that our service members
    receive these shots?
        Answer. From the Air Force perspective, the use of anthrax as a
    bio-weapon poses a significant threat to military operations. The
    anthrax vaccine is the most effective means available today to protect
    our forces. Although antibiotics were used following the anthrax
    attacks in 2001, they provide effective treatment only if exposure is
    known before symptoms appear. Unfortunately, we do not always have the
    necessary warning time necessary for antibiotics to work alone.
    Although we will continue to work to increase warning time of pending/
    existing attacks, our men and women must be prepared to carry out their
    duties in defense of this country regardless of circumstances. To that
    end, the best currently available round-the-clock protection to prepare
    our forces to counter the threat of anthrax is vaccination. The vaccine
    provides a critical layer of protection that may be augmented by
    antibiotics and other measures.
        Since March 1998, over 1.3 million DOD personnel have been
    protected against anthrax exposure. Over 150,000 Air Force personnel--
    Active, Guard and Reserve--in service today have received the anthrax
    vaccination. While some individuals have expressed concern about
    anthrax vaccine, a detailed analysis of 34 peer-reviewed medical
    journal articles shows that people vaccinated or unvaccinated against
    anthrax have the same health experiences. In 2002, the National Academy
    of Sciences published a Congressionally commissioned report that
    concluded anthrax vaccine has a side-effect profile similar to that of
    other vaccines licensed by the FDA (www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/4/
    150/0.pdf). It is well recognized that minor temporary side effects are
    underreported (the point Dr. Kessler makes); however, serious adverse
    events are reported, especially in a well-monitored integrated health
    system, such as the Military Health System.
        In addition, the Air Force--along with the other Services--utilizes
    the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine
    safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the FDA and the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention. This system collects and analyzes
    information from reports of adverse events that occur after the
    administration of all U.S. licensed vaccines. Reports are encouraged
    from all concerned individuals: patients, parents, health care
    providers, pharmacists and vaccine manufacturers. All anthrax vaccine
    recipients receive information via the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization
    Program trifold brochure and other means on how to access VAERS.
        With reference to adverse events, Air Force policy requires anyone
    who presents to medical personnel with a significant adverse health
    condition after receiving any vaccination (e.g., anthrax, smallpox,
    typhoid) to be evaluated by a physician to provide all necessary care
    for that event. The physician must determine whether further doses of
    that vaccine should be given, delayed, or a medical exemption--either
    temporary or permanent--be granted. Air Force medical personnel are
    trained how to manage perceived or actual adverse events after
    vaccination with any vaccine (i.e., how to assess, treat and report).
        As for links between anthrax vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome,
    two publications by the civilian Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee
    concluded that multi-symptom syndromes among some veterans of the
    Persian Gulf War were not reported more often among anthrax vaccinees
    than expected by chance. As explained in these articles, the vast
    majority of adverse-event reports involve temporary symptoms that
    resolve on their own. While one death has been classified as
    ``possibly'' related to a set of vaccinations, these civilian
    physicians did not attribute other reported deaths to anthrax
    vaccination in particular.
        With respect to expired lots, at no time has anyone shipped expired
    anthrax vaccine to any military facility. We are, however, aware of one
    incident involving vaccine from expired vials being administered to
    approximately 59 Marines at a military Medical Treatment Facility (MTF)
    in April 1999. That incident involved vaccine that expired after it had
    been stored on site at the medical treatment facility--it was not
    expired at the time of shipment. Corrective measures have been
    implemented to prevent a reoccurrence. For example, the handling
    procedures for vaccines were changed to ensure that, upon receipt by
    the MTF, the lot number and expiration of all vials of vaccine in the
    shipment are recorded. Also, the Distribution Operation Center at the
    United States Army Medical Materiel Agency issues a message to all
    Service Logistic Centers to pre-alert them to when any anthrax vaccine
    lot is about to expire. This message ensures all anthrax vaccine is
    used prior to expiration, and aids in the prevention of a reoccurrence
    of the situation encountered by the Marines.
        All information concerning this expired-vaccine incident was
    forwarded to the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB), an
    independent, nationally recognized group of civilian scientific experts
    that advises the DOD on the prevention of disease and injury and the
    promotion of health.
        After reviewing the details of the incident, the AFEB concluded
    that the expired vaccine administered to the Marines posed little or no
    safety risk and any decrement in potency of the expired vaccine would
    be minimal and clinically irrelevant.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                           CHCSII AND TRICARE ONLINE

        Question. I have followed the evolution of CHCS II and TRICARE
    Online with interest, and it strikes me that there is a confluence of
    maturing technologies that can be leveraged to empower the patient to
    improve health care quality while reducing health care costs. If
    Department of Defense servicemembers and beneficiaries are given the
    ability to securely enter data about themselves and their medical
    problems into CHCS II via TRICARE Online, it will solve a huge problem
    facing the military health system, namely how to get standardized
    clinical information into the medical record without using expensive
    and scarce medical personnel. Physicians would get better information
    about their patients, and patients would get immediate guidance from
    the tools mounted on TRICARE Online to help them with their problems. I
    know there are knowledge tools in CHCS II, but I would like each of you
    to comment on any plans your service has to offer them to beneficiaries
    on Tricare Online. What are your thoughts about using Tricare Online to
    help populate subjective clinical information into CHCS II?
        Answer. Any technology that helps our providers take better care of
    our patients is worth exploring. As a matter of fact, the TRICARE
    Medical Authority (TMA) is already working on expanding the ability of
    beneficiaries to input data directly into CHCS II. The technology is
    not quite there yet, but TMA has a short-term solution that uses the
    internet and e-mail to allow patients to communicate directly with
    their providers. TMA is also working on an internet based Health
    Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant solution
    involving the movement of patient data from TRICARE Online to the
    provider via e-mail.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                         POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        Question. The major mental health problem being faced by the
    returning veteran is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The New
    York Times recently reported that an Army study shows that about one in
    six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major depression, serious
    anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that some
    experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate
    ultimately found in Vietnam veterans. (NY Times, Dec. 16, 2004).
    (Reference for the above Army study is: New England Journal of
    Medicine, Vol. 351, No. 1, pg. 13).
        According to the Times and the Army report, ``through the end of
    September, the Army had evacuated 885 troops from Iraq for psychiatric
    reasons, including some who had threatened or tried suicide. But those
    are only the most extreme cases. Often, the symptoms of post-traumatic
    stress disorder do not emerge until months after discharge''. (NY
    Times, Dec. 16, 2004).
        The Times also referenced a report by the GAO that found similarly
    alarming results: ``A September report by the Government Accountability
    Office found that officials at six of seven Veterans Affairs medical
    facilities surveyed said they ``may not be able to meet'' increased
    demand for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.'' (NY Times,
    Dec. 16, 2004).
        However, despite this well-documented crisis, I am concerned that
    we are not doing enough to combat PTSD.''
        In light of these very serious concerns, what is the Department of
    Defense doing to address well-documented examples of PTSD in our men
    and women returning from the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and
    elsewhere?
        Answer. The Air Force currently screens all Airmen for PTSD
    symptoms upon redeployment. Because PTSD symptoms often emerge over
    time, the Air Force will begin reassessing Airmen 90-180 days after
    return from deployment, starting in June 2005. This reassessment
    screens for PTSD as well as other common mental health related
    concerns. Any deployer, whether active duty or reserve component, who
    endorses any psychological symptoms will receive a full evaluation be a
    healthcare provider, and referred for care when indicated.
        While review of post-deployment health assessment data indicate
    that Air Force deployers face significantly less exposure to traumatic
    stress than Army and Marine ground combat, the Air Force is nonetheless
    committed to identifying and treating all deployment related health
    concerns in an expeditious and thorough manner.
        Question. Are clinical trials being conducted in conjunction with
    our nation's pharmaceutical industry?
        Answer. The Air Force is not currently involved in clinical drug
    trials for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due
    to the very low incidence rate of PTSD within the Air Force.
        Question. Is the Department aware that there exists a not-for-
    profit organization in Maryland that is committed to pulling together
    all developing new technologies for the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. The Air Force relies on the VA/DOD Clinical Practice
    Guidelines for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) management. We are
    open and interested in any and all technologies and innovations in the
    area of PTSD treatment that meet clinical standards of care.
        Question. What is the Department doing to identify these and other
    innovative approaches to the treatment of PTSD?
        Answer. The Air Force has joined a working group with the other
    services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Center
    for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to identify state-of-the-art,
    empirically validated treatment approaches to PTSD.
        Our goals are to identify and treat PTSD symptoms as soon as
    possible, and to ensure continuity of care as Airmen move to new
    assignments or separate from the Air Force.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Colonel Barbara J. Bruno
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. How does the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences support military nursing?
        Answer. The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    (USUHS) supports military nursing by providing a ``signature
    curriculum'' designed to prepare nurses for practice and research in
    federal health care and military systems. The USUHS Graduate School of
    Nursing is dedicated to quality education that prepares both advanced
    practice nurses and nurse scientists with a Ph.D. to deliver care,
    conduct research and improve services to all military beneficiaries.
    Programs that are currently offered at USUHS include three Masters
    level programs; Perioperative Certified Nurse Specialist, Certified
    Nurse Anesthetist and Family Nurse Practitioner and a Ph.D. program in
    Nursing Science.
        Question. With the current nursing shortage nationwide, and
    continued need for medical support at home and overseas, what is the
    status of your recruiting and retention efforts?
        Answer. The Active Component (AC) Army Nurse Corps (ANC) has a
    requirement of 365 new officers for fiscal year 2005. As of June 30,
    2005, 187 new officers have been commissions and reported for active
    duty. It is projected that the AC ANC will meet 88 percent (322 of 365)
    of its accession requirements this year. The Reserve Component (RC) ANC
    has a requirement of 485 new officers for fiscal year 2005. As of June
    30, 2005, 236 new RC ANC officers have been commissioned. U.S. Army
    Recruiting Command projects that they will achieve 75 percent (366/485)
    of the RC ANC accession requirements this year.
        The ANC recruiting and retention programs are critical to our
    competitiveness in a tight nursing market. Active and Reserve programs
    are detailed below. Program gaps include funding a second baccalaureate
    degree for commissioned officers interested in becoming an Army Nurse
    and a scholarship program to fund enlisted Reserve Soldiers interested
    in obtaining a Bachelors of Science in nursing and pursuing a
    commission as a Reserve ANC officer.
    Active Component
        The Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) is a
    successful recruiting and retention tool for the ANC. HPLRP provides
    payment of up to $29,323 toward qualifying educational loans incurred
    from undergraduate nursing education. Currently, all eligible Active
    Component ANC officers have been offered the opportunity to participate
    in HPLRP, either at the time of accession or as a retention incentive,
    or both. Since its inception in 2003, 272 officers have participated in
    this program. Thus far in fiscal year 2005, 17 new direct accession AC
    officers have received HPLRP.
        The ANC offers a $15,000 accession bonus in exchange for a four-
    year active duty service obligation. This bonus is projected to
    increase to $20,000 in fiscal year 2006. Thus far in fiscal year 2005,
    15 new AC AN officers have elected this incentive. Officers may also
    choose to receive an accession bonus and participate in HPLRP. They
    receive an $8,000 accession bonus combined with the HPLRP of up to
    $29,323 for a six-year active duty service obligation. Thus far in
    fiscal year 2005, 37 new AC officers have elected to take this option.
    Nursing scholarships are offered through ROTC, the Army Nurse Candidate
    Program, and the Enlisted Commissioning Program. Scholarships vary in
    length from two, three, or four years depending on the program with at
    least a three year active duty service obligation. ROTC nursing cadets
    may participate in the Nurse Summer Training Program (NSTP), a three-
    week internship in which they work with an ANC officer caring for
    patients. While ROTC has struggled in recent years to meet nurse
    mission, projections indicate that ROTC will commission the required
    175 nurses by fiscal year 2007. This year's projection is for 131
    nurses.
        The ANC has robust programs for training nurses in specialty areas,
    which also serve as excellent recruiting and retention tools. Under the
    Generic Course Guarantee program new officers can choose critical care,
    perioperative, psychiatric/mental health, or obstetrical/gynecological
    training. All company grade officers are also eligible to apply to
    those courses, as well as courses in emergency and community health
    nursing.
        The Long Term Health Education and Training program is a highly
    successful retention tool for mid-level officers. This program offers
    the opportunity to obtain a fully funded Masters degree or Doctoral
    degree. Officers who participate in the program incur at least a four-
    year active duty service obligation depending on the length of the
    program. This past year, the U.S. Army Graduate Program in Nurse
    Anesthesia was ranked second in the nation by U.S. News and World
    Report.
        The ANC also offers specialty pay to nurse anesthetists, nurse
    practitioners, and certified nurse midwives. This year, the ANC
    successfully increased the specialty pay for nurse anesthetists for the
    first time in 10 years. Incentive specialty pay (ISP) is now $15,000 to
    $40,000, depending on their status and length of service agreement.
    Family nurse practitioners and certified nurse-midwives may also
    qualify for special pay that ranges from $2,000 to $5,000 annually.
        The AC ANC centrally manages the deployments of its officers in an
    effort to ensure equity throughout the organization. In terms of
    routine assignments, the ANC works aggressively to meet the personal
    and professional needs of its officers while ensuring both the needs of
    the Army and the officer are met as much as possible. Direct accessions
    usually receive one of their top three choices for their first
    assignment. Additionally, 98 percent of ANC officers married to other
    Army officers and enrolled in the Army Married Couples Program are co-
    assigned with their spouse.
    Reserve Component
        The HPLRP is available for all for Reserve ANC officers. It
    provides up to $50,000 over a three-year period for repayment of
    educational loans for nurse anesthetists, critical care, psychiatric/
    mental health, medical-surgical, and perioperative nurses who agree to
    serve in the Selected Reserve. The Reserve ANC also offers an accession
    bonus of $5,000 per year for up to three years of Selective Reserve
    duty. This year, 283 officers have received this incentive. New Reserve
    ANC officers may take advantage of both of these programs sequentially,
    but not in combination. The Specialized Training Assistance Program
    (STRAP), which provides a monthly stipend of $1,279, is available only
    to officers enrolled in nurse anesthesia and critical care masters of
    science in nursing programs. Currently, there are 120 officers
    receiving STRAP. All are nurse anesthesia students. STRAP for bachelors
    of science in nursing programs is currently being staffed at Department
    of the Army. It is anticipated that it will be available in fiscal year
    2006.
        Question. Can you describe the effects continued deployments have
    had on staffing for Medical Treatment Facilities?
        Answer. The effects continued deployments have had on staffing for
    Medical Treatment Facilities are numerous. Military hospitals are not
    receiving nursing replacements at the same ratio as those nurses
    deploying and overtime for government service employees is not
    mandatory. Therefore, military nurses are required to work additional
    and many times erratic hours to maintain the same level of healthcare
    services offered to our beneficiary population. Army Nurse Corps exit
    surveys reveal lack of compensation for extra hours, not enough time
    spent with family and likelihood of deployment as ``extremely
    important'' reasons for leaving active service. In a recent report
    commissioned by the United States Army Accession Command, reducing the
    length/frequency of overseas deployments has the greatest impact on
    nurse accessions.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                                NURSING SHORTAGE

        Question. How many military nurses do you have on active duty? How
    many civilian nurses are employed by your service? How many nurses in
    the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. The Army Nurse Corps currently has 3,105 nurses on active
    duty; the Army Medical Department had 3,025 civilian registered nurses
    employed; the Army National Guard had 651 nurses, and; the Army
    Selective Reserve had 5,554 nurses.
        Question. What is the deficit/shortage for each, between number on
    duty compared with the number you have authority to hire?
        Answer. The Army Nurse Corps deficit for the Active Component is
    301 nurses. This figure is derived from subtracting current active duty
    nurse inventory from 3,406 authorizations. As of March 31, 2005, there
    were 337 open recruitment actions for civilian registered nurse
    positions with the Army Medical Command. The Army National Guard
    deficit is 26 nurses. This figure represents the difference between
    reported inventory and 677 authorizations. Army Nurse Corps Selective
    Reserves deficit is 270 nurses, the difference between current
    inventory and authorizations.
        Question. What is the average number of years of service for active
    duty nurses? Guard and Reserve nurses?
        Answer. The average number of years of service for an active duty
    nurse is 8 years. The average number of years of service for National
    Guard is 18.0 and for the Reserves is 15.3 years.

                               NURSING EDUCATION

        Question. What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree at
    USUHS? What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree somewhere
    other than USUHS?
        Answer. As of May 31, 2005, 880 Army Nurse Corps officers possess a
    Master's degree, of those 8 percent hold a Master's degree from USUHS.
    Ninety-two percent possess a Master's Degree from an institution other
    than USUHS. The Army Nurse Corps is allotted a set number of seats in
    each of the three graduate nursing programs offered at USUHS. Officers
    interested in obtaining a Masters degree in a field offered through
    USUHS must attend USUHS and may not attend a civilian institution
    through the Long Term Health Education and Training (LTHET) program.
    The Army consistently fills the seats it is allotted at USUHS. In 2004,
    the Army Nurse Corps requested and was granted an expansion to double
    the number of seats in the Family Nurse Practitioner Program from 7 to
    14.
        Question. Does the military pay for advanced degrees for military
    nurses (at USUHS or elsewhere)?
        Answer. Each year the Army Nurse Corps sends 70-90 officers to
    complete graduate studies at USUHS or at a civilian institution through
    LTHET.
        Question. What is the average level of education for Military
    nurses? Civilian nurses?
        Answer. The average level of education for the Active Component
    Army Nurse Corps is a Bachelor's of Science in Nursing degree or
    Bachelor's of Science degree with a major in nursing. The average level
    of education for Civilian nurses is an Associate Degree in Nursing.

                               NURSING EXPERIENCE

        Question. What percent of your nurses come directly from nursing
    school, and what percent are experienced in nursing when they join the
    military? What percent of your nurses are prior service (in any
    specialty)? What percent are prior service and from another service
    (e.g., former Army nurses now working for the Navy)?
        Answer. All active duty officers complete college or university
    prior to their accession. Over the past five years, seventy-six percent
    of newly assessed Army Nurse Corps officers are new college/university
    graduates and twenty-four percent have at least one year of nursing
    experience. Forty-five percent of Active Component Army Nurse Corps
    officers have prior service experience. Eight percent of Active
    Component Army Nurse Corps officers served in another service prior to
    becoming an Army Nurse Corps officer.

                              NURSING DEPLOYMENTS

        Question. Where/how are your nurses currently deployed?
        Answer. In the interest of answering this question thoroughly and
    as succinctly as possible the word ``deployed'' is defined as a nurse
    drawing hazardous fire pay in a theater of operations. Army Nurse Corps
    officers are deployed in support of both Operation Enduring Freedom in
    Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq/Kuwait. These officers
    deploy as nurses in Brigade and Division Support Medical Companies; in
    Corps-level Area Medical Support Companies; in Forward Surgical Teams;
    in Combat Support Hospitals, and; as Chief Nurse in a Corps/Theater-
    level Medical Brigade/Medical Command and Control unit.
        Question. How often are Reserve/NG nurses activated?
        Answer. The current rotation policy for Army Reserve and Army
    National Guard units, specified in the Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG)
    of the Army, is a 1 year mobilization followed by 3 years of
    stabilization. The objective set by the Chief, Army Reserve and the
    Department of Defense is a 6 year rotation, 1 year mobilization and 5
    years dwell time. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists deploy under
    the Army's 90-Day Boots-on-the-Ground policy--a 120-day mobilization
    (no more than 90-days deployed) followed by at least 12 months
    stabilization. This policy was introduced to help retain critical
    wartime surgical specialties. According to information from the Army
    Reserve 1,272 nurses have been mobilized since November 2001.

                                CIVILIAN NURSES

        Question. Are civilian nurses used any differently than military
    nurses?
        Answer. Civilian nurses are utilized based on the job description
    and scope of practice. Unlike military nurses they do not deploy or
    have additional military training requirements. Civilian registered
    nurses (Civil Service Employees) are available to pull on-call
    schedules, work weekends, holidays and perform overtime within
    budgetary feasibility.
        Question. Do they fall under the same pay scale as military nurses?
    What about retirement benefits?
        Answer. Civilian nurses do not fall under the same pay scale as
    military nurses. Civilian nurses are paid based on the Department of
    Defense General Schedule pay system. Civilian nurses receive the same
    retirement benefits as all other Title 5 Federal civilian employees.
        Question. What is the relationship between AC military and civilian
    nurses, and their counterparts in the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. Active component military and civilian nurses and their
    counterparts in the Guard and Reserves are invaluable members of the
    healthcare team. Overall a very good working relationship exists
    between our Active and Reserve Components and civilian nurses. The
    Guard, Selective Reserve, and civilian nurses support our ability to
    provide quality nursing care.
        Question. What is the average number of years a civilian nurse is
    employed by the military health care system (is there a high turnover?)
        Answer. The average number of years a civilian nurse is employed by
    the military health care system is 9.9 years. The U.S. Army Medical
    Command Civilian Personnel Office defines turnover rate as losses/prior
    year-end strength. The turnover rate for civilian registered nurses is
    17-20 percent. The replacement rate is calculated as the number of
    fiscal year fills divided by prior year-end strength. The fiscal year
    2004 Replacement Rate was 34 percent.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Nancy J. Lescavage
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. How does the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences support military nursing?
        Answer. Programs within the Uniformed Services University of the
    Health Sciences Graduate School of Nursing (USUHS GSN) have been
    successful in meeting our Navy Nursing specialty requirements. In fact,
    the Navy Nurse Corps requires all applicants for Family Nurse
    Practitioner, Perioperative Nursing, and Nurse Anesthesia Master's
    Degree Programs to seek admission to USUHS GSN as one of their two
    schools of choice.
        Our graduating nurses have reported that the graduate level
    education and clinical experiences obtained at the USUHS GSN are of the
    highest caliber, enhancing their medical readiness. During their
    program, our students report extreme satisfaction with the advanced
    professional clinical competencies they attain and the incorporation of
    military relevant practice and mission requirements into the curriculum
    (not available in civilian university programs). In addition, gaining
    commands report that these graduates meet credentialing requirements
    quickly and demonstrate the highest levels of clinical competencies.
        Of particular note, our first two Navy Nurses began the newly
    established Nursing Ph.D. Program this past fall on a full-time basis.
    In our vision, these graduates will take on the ultimate executive
    positions to create health policies, advance research and improve
    delivery systems. Their valued experience will be critical to advance
    and disseminate scientific knowledge, foster nursing excellence, and
    improve clinical outcomes across Navy Medicine and Federal agencies.
        Question. With the current nursing shortage nationwide, and
    continued need for medical support at home and overseas, what is the
    status of your recruiting and retention efforts?
        Answer. Navy Nurse Corps' recruitment efforts include a blend of
    diverse accession sources. Our successful pipeline scholarship programs
    (Nurse Candidate Program, Medical Enlisted Commission Program, Reserve
    Officer Training Corps, and Seaman to Admiral Program) account for 65
    percent of our active duty staffing requirements. The remainder (35
    percent) is acquired through direct accession and reserve recalls.
        For the first time in ten years, we only attained 68 percent of our
    fiscal year 2004 recruitment goal, acquiring 63 out of 92 nurses. As of
    March 2005, we have attained 21 percent of our fiscal year 2005
    recruitment goal, which is 6 percent less than our recorded status
    during the same month of last year. As a result, we carefully monitor
    our progress on a weekly basis.
        Our overall retention rate remains stable at 91 percent. Various
    retention initiatives include: graduate education and training
    programs, pay incentives, operational experiences, and quality of life
    issues (mentorship, leadership roles, promotion opportunities, job
    satisfaction, and full scope of practice). By the end of fiscal year
    2005, based on projected gains and losses, we anticipate a deficit of
    137 with a billet authorization of 3098 (96 percent end strength).
        Question. Can you describe the effects continued deployments have
    had on staffing for Medical Treatment Facilities?
        Answer. In sync with Navy Medicine's priority of delivering quality
    and cost-effective health care, our Navy Nurses span the continuum of
    care from promoting wellness to maintaining the optimal performance of
    the entire patient. With the deployment of over 400 Active Duty Navy
    Nurses along with the mobilization of Reserve Nurses to support our
    Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs), there has been neither a
    reduction of inpatient bed capacity nor an increase of network
    disengagements. Military (active and mobilized reserve components) and
    civilian nurses who remained at the homefront continued to be the
    backbone and structure in promoting, protecting and restoring the
    health of all entrusted to our care. Our success is attributed to
    innovative health services programs and joint partnerships across our
    MTFs. Ultimately, all MTFs do everything possible to conserve and best
    utilize the remaining medical department personnel through appropriate
    resource management practices (i.e. leave control, overtime
    compensation, streamlined hiring practices).
        Through an active Patient Safety Program, our military, civil
    service and contract personnel constantly monitor the safe delivery of
    patient care. In maintaining consistent superior quality of services,
    we utilize research-based clinical practices with a customized
    population health approach across the entire health care team. In
    addition, we maximize our innovative health services programs and joint
    partnerships across our military treatment facilities.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                               NURSING SHORTAGES

        Question. How many military nurses do you have on Active Duty?
        Answer. As of March 2005, there were 2,948 Active Duty Navy Nurse
    Corps Officers.
        Question. How many civilian nurses are employed by your service?
        Answer. Currently Navy Medicine employs 1,210 Registered Nurses
    (GS-610); 305 Practical Nurses (GS-620); and 12 Nursing Assistants (GS-
    621).
        Question. How many nurses in the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. The Navy is not organized like the Air Force or Army, and
    does not have a Guard Component. The Reserve Component of the Navy
    Nurse Corps, as of the end of March 2005, had a total end-strength of
    1,718 officers.
        Question. What is the deficit/shortage for each, between number on
    duty compared with the number you have authority to hire?
        Answer. We have 3,098 authorized Active Duty Nurse Corps Billets.
    As of March 2005, we had 2,948 billets filled for a deficit of 150
    Nurse Corps Officers. As of March 2005, the authorized number of
    billets for the Reserve Nurse Corps is 1,370. There are 1,718 Reserve
    Nurse Corps Officers for a total of 348 over our end strength.
        Question. What is the average number of years of service for Active
    Duty nurses? Guard and Reserve nurses?
        Answer. The average number of years of commissioned service for
    Active Duty nurses is 9 years. The average number of years of total
    Active Duty service (commissioned and enlisted years) is 12 years. The
    average number of total years served (enlisted and commissioned) for
    Reserve Nurse Corps officers is 16.13 years.

                                   EDUCATION

        Question. What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree at
    USUHS?
        Answer. In calendar year 2004, there were 5 nursing graduates from
    USUHS or 7.0 percent of the total (71) Active Duty Navy Nurse Corps
    graduates in 2004. In 2005, the number of Navy students graduating from
    USUHS is also 5 or 7.0 percent of the total (70) Active Duty Navy
    Nurses expected to graduate. This year we are increasing the number of
    students attending USUHS. There will be a total of 24 students
    attending USUHS beginning fiscal year 2006.
        Question. What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree
    somewhere other than USUHS?
        Answer. In the calendar year 2004, 66 Active Duty Navy Nurse Corps
    Officers received graduate degrees outside of USUHS. This is 93 percent
    of the total (71) Active Duty Navy Nurse Corps graduates in 2004. For
    2005, we anticipate 65 graduates from universities outside of USUHS.
    This is 93 percent of the total (70) Active Duty Navy Nurse Corps
    graduates.
        Question. Does the military pay for advanced degrees for military
    nurses (at USUHS or elsewhere)?
        Answer. Although a few nurses join the Navy with advanced degrees,
    the Navy Medical Education and Training Command is budgeted to fund
    approximately 75 graduate nursing students each year. This ``Duty Under
    Instruction'' scholarship program allows the Navy Nurse Corps to
    prepare Advanced Practice Nurses (APN), Clinical Nurse Specialists
    (CNS) and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA). These
    scholarships pay for the advanced training needed to support caring for
    those in harm's way.
        Question. What is the average level of education for Military
    nurses? Civilian nurses?
        Answer. Beginning fiscal year 2005, the level of education for
    Active Duty military nurses was 64 percent BSN, 30 percent MSN, 0.6
    percent Doctorate and 5 percent in graduate school. While aggregate
    data is not available on the education levels of our civilian nurses,
    they are graduates of two year community college programs, three year
    hospital based diploma programs, and the majority are four year college
    graduates.

                                   EXPERIENCE

        Question. What percent of your nurses come directly from nursing
    school, and what percent are experienced in nursing when they join the
    military?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2004 we had 223 accessions to Active Duty.
    Of these, 38 had some experience (17 percent) and the remainder (185)
    were new graduates directly from school (83 percent).
        Question. What percent of your nurses are prior service (in any
    specialty)?
        Answer. Approximately 45 percent of the 2,948 Nurse Corps Officers
    on Active Duty as of March 2005 have at least 12 months or more of
    prior service. This is a result of the excellent pipeline (enlisted to
    officer) programs in the form of scholarships, that add stability to
    our numbers. This is particularly evident in readiness essential
    specialties such as the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA)
    community. In this specialty, 68 of 146 CRNA's (47 percent) are prior
    service.
        Question. What percent are prior service and from another service
    (e.g., former Army nurses now working for the Navy)?
        Answer. Of the 2,948 Navy Nurses on Active Duty as of March 2005,
    six (0.2 percent) are inter-service transfers. Since the year 2000, the
    Navy Reserve has had a total of 37 inter-service transfers which
    represents about 2 percent of our total reserve end-strength.

                                  DEPLOYMENTS

        Question. Where/how are your nurses currently deployed?
        Answer. Navy Nurses have deployed this past year throughout the
    world to Kuwait, Iraq, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Philippines,
    Thailand and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. During these deployments they
    support our operational and humanitarian mission via Surgical
    Companies, Surgical Teams, Shock Trauma Platoons, the Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical System, Fleet Hospitals, Expeditionary Medical
    Facilities, on both Navy and Hospital Ships, and our Medical Treatment
    Facilities abroad.
        Question. How often are Reserve/NG nurses activated?
        Answer. As of December 2004, a total of 385 nurses have been
    activated for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This represents a total of 23
    percent of the Reserve Nurse Corps End-Strength. Current Secretary of
    the Navy policy allows for a non-voluntary recall for up to 24 months.
    Most officers are recalled for a period of one year, with an option to
    serve a second year as needed.

                                CIVILIAN NURSES

        Question. Are civilian nurses used any differently than military
    nurses?
        Answer. Essentially, civilian nurses are hired primarily for their
    clinical expertise. All civilian nurses are hired with a minimum three
    years clinical experience, so they supply an immediate clinical support
    for all of our specialty areas. However, since we have a greater
    deployment requirement for some specialties such as perioperative,
    critical care, anesthesia, emergency/trauma, psychiatric/mental health
    and surgical nursing, there are often more military nurses in these
    specialties. Consequently, there are often more civilian nurses working
    in clinical areas such as obstetrical, maternal-infant, pediatrics and
    newborn nursery.
        Question. Do they fall under the same pay scale as military nurses?
        Answer. Civilian nurses are paid under separate pay scales based on
    the General Schedule or special salary rates established by the Office
    of Personnel Management (OPM) or the Department of Defense under an
    agreement with OPM to use certain pay flexibilities granted to the
    Veterans Administration. For the most part, civil service Registered
    Nurses are paid in the range of $64,000 to $80,000 for base salary.
        Question. What about retirement benefits?
        Answer. Civil service nurses are covered by two retirement plans
    based on when they entered the federal service. Both are contributory
    plans and require the employee to make contributions from pay toward
    their retirement.
      --Civil Service Retirement System--is basically a single
            contributory, self-insured program supplemented by the non-
            matched Thrift Saving Plan.
      --Federal Employees Retirement System--is a combination of social
            security, small basic annuity and the Thrift Saving Plan (with
            some matching contributions).
        Question. What is the relationship between AC military and civilian
    nurses, and their counterparts in the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. In support of the One Navy Medicine concept, the
    integration of active, reserve and civilian nurses renders a more
    effective, efficient and fully mission-ready nursing force both at home
    and abroad. With the deployment of over 400 Active Duty Nurses along
    with the mobilization of Reserve Nurses to support our Military
    Treatment Facilities, this concept of integration has allowed our
    civilian staff, reserve backfill and Active Duty nurses to work
    seamlessly to care for all of our beneficiaries.
        Question. What is the average number of years a civilian nurse is
    employed by the military health care system (is there a high turnover?)
        Answer. With the keen competition for nurses in many of the more
    populated areas, nurses will move from hospital to hospital based on
    salary. Turnover is a continuing challenge, but with the flexibilities
    in hiring and compensation, we seem to be competitive. At any one point
    in time, there are approximately 50 civilian nurse vacancies, or 4.0
    percent of the 1,210 total Registered Nurse positions.
                                     ______

            Questions Submitted to Major General Barbara C. Brannon
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. How does the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences support military nursing?
        Answer. The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    (USUHS) is committed to providing excellence in graduate nursing
    education to prepare advanced practice nurses for the delivery of
    healthcare during peace, disaster response, homeland security threats
    and war. The Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) faculty and staff have an
    exceptional blend of experience in the military and/or the federal
    health care systems, and are prepared to provide a distinctly unique
    educational experience that cannot be found at other universities. The
    GSN signature curriculum is specifically designed to prepare nurses for
    advanced practice and research roles in support of Active Duty members
    of the uniformed services, their families and all other eligible
    beneficiaries. This curriculum for graduate students includes
    operational readiness, evidence-based practice, population health
    outcomes, force health protection, federal health care systems, as well
    as leadership.
        The Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist (PCNS) Program (the
    newest Master's program) prepares graduate nurses for clinical
    practice, management, leadership, research, teaching and consultation
    in advanced practice roles within the perioperative environment. This
    is the only program of its kind in the United States focused totally on
    perioperative practice and administration. Military unique aspects of
    the curriculum stresses concepts directed toward delivering
    perioperative care in both the military and federal health care system
    with a strong focus on patient safety research and care in austere
    environments. USUHS graduates are uniquely qualified to provide quality
    care in a variety of settings to include peacetime and wartime
    environments.
        The Registered Nurse Anesthesia (RNA) Program is dedicated to
    providing highly qualified nurse anesthetists for the uniformed
    services. The uniformed services require graduates independently
    provide quality anesthesia care in diverse settings. The military
    unique curriculum is specifically designed to integrate scientific
    principles of anesthesia theory and practice, stressing the unique
    features of operational readiness throughout the curriculum to prepare
    nurse anesthetists ready to deploy immediately upon graduation. USUHS
    Graduate School of Nursing students deploy up to six months earlier
    than graduates from other RNA programs.
        The rigorous curriculum of the Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP)
    Program at USUHS prepares graduate nurses for advanced practice roles
    in the federal sector. Their curriculum is more heavily weighted in
    diagnostic reasoning and clinical decision-making since they practice
    more autonomously in remote settings. In addition, the military unique
    program includes field training to prepare nurses to support combat
    casualties in deployed environment. Like the PCNS and RNA students, FNP
    students graduate with a full compliment of operational readiness
    skills and can deploy immediately upon graduation.
        The Uniformed Services University also prepares military and
    federal health nurses through doctoral education to research subjects
    from operational readiness and deployment health to patient safety and
    population health and outcomes management. This operational plan for
    research has been lauded by the Federal Nursing Service Chiefs, members
    of the USUHS Board of Regents, as well as the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense/Health Affairs.
        Operational readiness research areas at both the master's and
    doctoral level include Active Duty, Reserve and Guard fitness, health
    systems readiness, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
    high-yield explosives (CBRNE) defense, decision support and validation
    of readiness training. Research also focuses on war injuries, care of
    amputees, women's health in the deployed environment and stress and
    coping in military families. Patient safety research is aimed at
    addressing scientific inquiry in the areas of health literacy and
    safety in the emergency room and/or operating room. Finally, research
    in the domain of genetics examines the latest in genetic testing and
    newborn screening.
        The Uniformed Services University provides the nation with premier
    nurses dedicated to career service in the Department of Defense and the
    United States Public and Federal Health Services. The curriculum
    includes military unique content that is not presented at civilian
    universities.
        Question. With the current nursing shortage nationwide, and
    continued need for medical support at home and overseas, what is the
    status of your recruiting and retention efforts?
        Answer. The nursing shortage continues to pose enormous challenges
    in supplying our demand for military nurse accessions and sourcing
    civilian nursing workforce. A robust recruiting program is essential to
    sustain the Air Force Nurse Corps. We have consistently been below our
    goals: 78 percent in fiscal year 2001, 67 percent in fiscal year 2002,
    79 percent in fiscal year 2003, and 71 percent in fiscal year 2004. Our
    fiscal year 2005 recruiting goal is 357 nurses and it appears we will
    end the year around 70 percent of that goal. We use the Health
    Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP), accession bonuses and ROTC
    scholarships to recruit top quality nurses.
        Our most successful tool for recruiting novice nurses has been the
    HPLRP. In fiscal year 2004, we filled 118 quotas of up to $28,000 each.
    For fiscal year 2005, we could only fund 26 HPLRPs, leaving the
    accession bonus as the only financial incentive available. We increased
    the accession bonus from $10,000 to $15,000 for a four-year commitment.
    This has been moderately successful. We are currently formulating
    programs to use the National Defense Authorization Act 2005 authority
    to offer an accession bonus with a three-year commitment.
        We have increased nursing Air Force ROTC quotas for the last two
    years and filled 100 percent of our quotas. We added additional ROTC
    scholarships for fiscal year 2005, increasing our quota from 35 in
    fiscal year 2004 to 41. We are also enhancing our ``grow our own''
    nurses from our enlisted corps. We revised the eligibility requirements
    for the Airmen Enlisted Commissioning Program (AECP) to increase the
    pool of enlisted to complete a Bachelor of Science in Nursing while on
    active duty. Following graduation they commission into the Air Force
    Nurse Corps. We have accessed 24 nurses through this program since its
    inception in fiscal year 2001.
        Advanced practice nurses are difficult to recruit. We primarily
    meet our requirements by training our active duty nurses in advanced
    specialties. We offer financial incentives to retain board certified
    nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and certified registered
    nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) consistent with our sister services.
    Advanced practice nurses earn an additional $2,000 per year for less
    than ten years of experience. In fiscal year 2000 we increased the CRNA
    special pay to $6,000 per year while they complete any time commitment
    for training. For those without a training commitment we increased the
    rate in fiscal year 2005 up to $25,000 per year for a three-year
    commitment. As a result, retention rates for CRNAs have increased from
    a low of 81 percent for fiscal year 2000 to 88 percent for fiscal year
    2004.
        The nationwide nursing shortage has also affected our ability to
    recruit civilian nurses. While the direct hire authority has
    significantly improved the hiring process for nurses, numerous
    positions remain unfilled in select areas of the country. The retention
    of these nurses has also proven to be a challenge. We have difficulty
    competing with civilian facilities that continue to offer more
    attractive incentive packages.
        While this continues to be a challenging time for recruiting, our
    retention has been excellent. We have averaged a loss rate of just over
    eight percent in the last ten years. Our nurses enjoy the opportunity
    for professional development including the opportunity to apply for
    advanced degree programs. They also recognize the promotion and
    leadership opportunities available in the Air Force that are not as
    common in the civilian sector. Our nurses are some of our best
    recruiters as they tell their stories and share their experiences. We
    continue to advertise our great quality of life and career
    opportunities, as we remain focused on attracting top quality
    baccalaureate nurses and nurturing them into tomorrow's nursing
    leaders.
        Question. Can you describe the effects continued deployments have
    had on staffing for Medical Treatment Facilities?
        Answer. The Air Force Medical Service has been faced with the
    challenge of providing consistent medical support to each Air
    Expeditionary Force (AEF) while at the same time maintaining critical
    home station medical support and formal medical education programs. The
    solution has been to optimize use of medical center and large hospital
    staffing to meet most AEF requirements. This has multiple benefits
    including the ability to provide a constant, predictable, measurable
    level of support (same hit for medical treatment facility in every
    bucket). This also allows for better programmatic adjustments as well
    as increased ability to capitalize on resourcing investments and
    enhancement of medical education and training.
        While this process has been successful in anticipating the
    requirements for deployment, several additional challenges have come to
    light. These include tasking for already stressed medical Air Force
    specialties, e.g., Critical Care, Surgical Specialties, Mental Health,
    and Independent Duty Medical Technicians. Also, the Air Force has been
    asked to fill some billets, e.g., Combat Stress Teams, Preventive
    Medicine Teams, Detainee Health Team and others. These additional
    taskings are met within the AEF cycle when possible to maintain a
    predictable level of support. When this cannot be accomplished,
    additional deployable assets may be tasked. Another solution has been
    to use Air Force medics that have not previously been considered
    deployable for medical reasons to fill assignments such as staff
    positions to backfill personnel at either Air Force facilities that
    deploy personnel or to deploy forward. Air Force medics who might not
    be able to deploy forward have also been tasked to fill slots at Army
    facilities such as Landstuhl in Germany and Tripler Army Medical Center
    in Hawaii.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                               NURSING SHORTAGES

        Question. How many military nurses do you have on active duty?
        Answer. There are 3,673 nurses on active duty as of April 30, 2005.
        Question. How many civilian nurses are employed by your service?
        Answer. The number of civilian nurses currently employed by Air
    Force is 740.
        Question. How many nurses in the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. There are currently 797 nurses in the Air National Guard
    and 2,062 in the Air Force Reserve.
        Question. What is the deficit/shortage for each, between number on
    duty compared with the number you have authority to hire?
        Answer. The deficit/shortage between number of nurses on duty
    compared to the number we have the authority to hire for Active, Guard,
    Reserve, and Civilian is as follows:
        Active Duty deficit/shortage equals 277 out of 3,673.
        Guard deficit/shortage equals 120 out of 797.
        Reserve deficit/shortage equals 106 out of 2,062.
        Civilian deficit/shortage equals 28 out of 740.
        Question. What is the average number of years of service for active
    duty nurses? Guard and Reserve nurses?
        Answer. The average number of years of service for Active Duty
    nurses is 11 years, while the average number of years of service for
    Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve nurses is 15 years.

                                   EDUCATION

        Question. What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree at
    USUHS?
        Answer. Currently, 2 percent (92) of all nurses on active duty
    (3,675) have a graduate degree from the USUHS. On average, 45.6 percent
    (26) of all nurses are selected each year for Air Force-sponsored
    education opportunities to attend the USUHS in the following programs:
    Masters of Science in Nursing (MSN): Family Nurse Practitioner MSN;
    Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist; MSN Nurse Anesthesia;
    Doctorate (PhD), and Nursing Science.
        Question. What percent of your nurses get a graduate degree
    somewhere other than at USUHS?
        Answer. We currently have 1,443 Nurses with Masters Degrees in the
    Air Force. The breakdown is as follows: 915 Other (on their own)--63.4
    percent; 407 AFIT (Air Force Institute of Technology) sponsored--27.0
    percent; 92 USUHS--7.6 percent; 21 Tuition Assistance--1.4 percent; 6
    HPSP (Health Professions Scholarship Program)--0.4 percent; 1 VEAP
    (Veterans Education Assistance Program)--0.06 percent; and 1 Education
    Delay--0.06 percent.
        We currently have 14 Nurses with Ph.D.s in the Air Force. The
    breakdown is as follows: 6 AFIT sponsored; and 8 Other (on their own).
        There are currently three Air Force students enrolled in the Ph.D.
    program at the USUHS.
        Question. Does the military pay for advanced degrees for military
    nurses (at USUHS or elsewhere)?
        Answer. The Air Force has several programs to assist nurses in
    pursuing advanced degrees. In fiscal year 2004 we selected 57 nurses
    for education opportunities. Of these, 31 attended civilian
    institutions for programs not offered at the USUHS. These students are
    sponsored by the Air Force Institute of Technology. The remaining 26
    nurses selected attended the USUHS. The Air Force also offers tuition
    assistance for Airmen that choose to pursue programs during off-duty
    time. Officers can receive up to $4,500 per fiscal year for courses
    that lead to an advanced degree. We also offer scholarships for nurses
    interested in nurse anesthesia and women's health through the Health
    Professions Scholarship Program.
        Question. What is the average level of education for Military
    nurses? Civilian nurses?
        Answer. All nurses in the Air Force Nurse Corps hold a bachelors
    degree in nursing. Of these, 39.3 percent (1,443) also hold a masters
    degree and 0.4 percent (14) hold a Ph.D.
        According to the most recent data from the American Association of
    Colleges of Nursing, in the year 2000, 34 percent of nurses in the
    civilian sector hold an associates degree in nursing (ADN), 22 percent
    practice with a diploma, and 43 percent hold a bachelors degree in
    nursing. Only 9.6 percent hold a masters degree and 0.6 percent hold a
    Ph.D. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
    only 16 percent of ADNs obtain a post-RN nursing or nursing-related
    degree.

                                   EXPERIENCE

        Question. What percent of your nurses come directly from nursing
    school, and what percent are experienced in nursing when they join the
    military?
        Answer. Nurses are considered inexperienced until they have
    practiced for one year. Experienced nurses, on the other hand, have
    worked in clinical nursing for more than one year or have trained in a
    specialized area. Over the last four years, the percentage of
    inexperienced nurses recruited has steadily increased. In fiscal year
    2001, these nurses comprised 22.8 percent of all new accessions with
    experienced nurses constituting the remaining 77.2 percent. By the end
    of fiscal year 2004 the percentage of inexperienced nurses increased to
    39.3 percent of all nurses recruited, bringing the four-year average to
    30.9 percent. The four-year average for experienced nurses fell to 69.1
    percent.
        Question. What percent of your nurses are prior service (in any
    specialty)?
        Answer. Officers in the Air Force Nurse Corps come from a variety
    of backgrounds. Nurses with prior service in any specialty comprise
    25.6 percent of the Air Force Nurse Corps. Of these, one percent are
    officers commissioned in the Air Force that later transferred to the
    Nurse Corps. Nurses with prior enlisted service make up 24.6 percent of
    the Air Force Nurse Corps. From this category, eight percent were prior
    enlisted in the Air Force and 16.6 percent were prior enlisted in other
    services, including the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
        Question. What percent are prior service and from another service
    (e.g., former Army nurses now working for the Navy)?
        Answer. At the end of calendar year 2004, the Air Force Nurse Corps
    included 392 nurses (10.8 percent) who had been commissioned in a
    different branch of the military and then transferred to the Air Force.
    This includes nurses who transferred from the Air Force Reserve and the
    Air National Guard.

                                  DEPLOYMENTS

        Question. Where/how are your nurses currently deployed?
        Answer. The following data is obtained from Deliberate Crisis
    Action Planning Execution Segments (DCAPES) and is as of May 24, 2005.
    The data reflects personnel deployed on Contingency/Exercise Deployment
    (CED) orders at SECRET level and below and includes the type of nurse
    currently deployed by the area of responsibility of deployment.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           TDY--AOR
                        AFSC5D                     -------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                                     CENTCOM     EUCOM     NORTHCOM    PACOM     SOUTHCOM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CLINICAL NURSE................................         40         11         13          1          3         68
    CN CRITICAL CARE..............................         30         15          7  .........  .........         52
    CN Womens Health Care Nurse Prac..............          1  .........          1  .........  .........          2
    FLIGHT NURSE..................................         40         28         45  .........  .........        113
    MENTAL HEALTH NURSE...........................          2          4          6  .........  .........         12
    NURSE-ANESTHETIST.............................          7  .........  .........  .........          1          8
    NURSING ADMINISTRATOR.........................          5  .........          3  .........  .........          8
    OPERATING ROOM NURSE..........................         19  .........          1  .........  .........         20
    NURSE-MIDWIFE.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          1          1
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Grand Total.............................        144         58         76          1          5        284
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How often are Reserve/NG nurses activated?
        Answer. Based on personnel currently assigned to the Selected
    Reserve (SelRes), there are 2,876 nurses in the SelRes. Of this number,
    733 individuals have been mobilized 845 times since September 11, 2001.
    Specifically, one was mobilized four times; five were mobilized three
    times; 99 were mobilized two times; and 628 were mobilized one time.
    The average number of mobilizations per month since September 11, 2001
    is approximately 19 (about 11 mobilizations a month during the past 12
    months). The peak mobilizations were in February-April, 2003 (490
    total; with 232 in March 2003)--of those mobilized, 475 individuals
    were deployed one or more times. Note: The mobilization data are per
    the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) and the deployment data are
    per the Deliberate Crisis Action Planning Execution Segments (DCAPES)
    deployed history file, May, 2005.

                                CIVILIAN NURSES

        Question. Are civilian nurses used any differently than military
    nurses?
        Answer. During peacetime, civilian nurses are used much the same as
    military nurses. One stumbling block to fully integrating civilian
    nurses into our nursing teams is the requirement for overtime pay for
    time worked beyond forty hours. On Air Force hospital inpatient units,
    nurses are scheduled on 12-hour shifts. The rotation requires the
    nurses to work four shifts one week and three shifts on the opposite
    weeks. Civilian nurses would regularly exceed forty hours in a seven-
    day period and have fewer than forty hours in others. This would
    increase civilian pay bills. Additionally, when a civilian has a short
    notice absence, the extra coverage usually falls to the military
    nurses. This is manageable with a small civilian force; however,
    scheduling is much more complicated and taxing with a larger civilian
    force. Civilian nurses are currently assigned to all settings, but in
    the future will be concentrated in the outpatient clinics. We need to
    assign military nurses to most of our inpatient and critical care
    authorizations for currency in wartime clinical skills.
        Question. Do they fall under the same pay scale as military nurses?
        Answer. Civilian and military nurses do not fall under the same pay
    scale. Civilian nurses currently receive their pay based on the General
    Schedule (GS) for federal employees or a contractual agreement. Pay
    rates may be adjusted based on locality. The GS rating for nurses may
    vary due to kind of work (inpatient versus outpatient), specialized
    skills necessary (intensive care versus inpatient ward), and management
    responsibilities.
        Basic Pay is the fundamental component of military pay. All members
    receive it and typically it is the largest component of a member's pay.
    A member's grade (usually the same as rank) and years of service
    determines the amount of basic pay received. Their basic pay is not
    affected by the their duty location. The military does offer
    certification pay for our advanced practice nurses and incentive
    special pay for our Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists.
        Question. What about retirement benefits?
        Answer. The retirement benefits would be computed using the general
    formula for the retirement system the employee is covered under the
    Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees
    Retirement System (FERS). The formulas for the computation of
    retirement benefits can be found in the U.S. Office of Personnel
    Management CSRS and FERS Handbook For Personnel and Payroll Offices
    available on line at http://www.opm.gov/asd/hod/pdf/C050.pdf.
        Question. What is the relationship between AC military and civilian
    nurses, and their counterparts in the Guard and Reserves?
        Answer. Nurses in the Air National Guard (ANG) and in the Air
    Reserve Component (ARC) are utilized several ways once activated. Some
    of the nurses are used to backfill positions vacated by active duty
    nurses deploying. This role has enabled some facilities to continue to
    meet their peacetime mission requirements. Other nurses are deployed
    along with their units. They have manned contingency air staging
    facilities overseas and stateside. They are also responsible for 88
    percent of aeromedical evacuation flights.
        While on active duty, ANG and ARC nurses receive the same pay and
    benefits as their full-time Active Duty counterparts. Civilian nurses
    receive their pay based on the General Schedule (GS) for federal
    employees or a contractual agreement.
        Question. What is the average number of years a civilian nurse is
    employed by the military health care system (is there a high turnover?)
        Answer. The civilian nurses currently employed by the Air Force
    through the military health care system have worked for the Air Force
    for an average of 8.26 years. The nurses who left Air Force employment
    between January 1, 2004 and May 1, 2005 had an average of 7.81 years of
    civilian service some of which may have been performed for other
    governmental agencies.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. The subcommittee will reconvene tomorrow
    at 10 a.m., in this room to review the Missile Defense Program
    for 2006. We stand in recess until that time.
        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., Tuesday, May 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    May 11.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005

                                           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, and Inouye.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Missile Defense Program

    STATEMENTS OF:
            GENERAL JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS,
                COMMANDER, UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
            LIEUTENANT GENERAL HENRY A. OBERING, III, UNITED STATES AIR
                FORCE, DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. The subcommittee is pleased to welcome
    General James Cartwright, Commander of the United States (U.S.)
    Strategic Command (STRATCOM), and Lieutenant General Henry
    Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). General
    Obering, this is your first opportunity I believe to testify
    before us as Director of the Missile Defense Agency. We welcome
    you. Given your service at MDA and in other roles, your having
    been a Director for almost 1 year now, we are happy to see you
    on board and to welcome you to our subcommittee. We thank you
    both for coming today.
        Ballistic missile defense (BMD) is one of the most
    challenging missions in the Department of Defense. This
    subcommittee has consistently provided support for missile
    defense programs. It is fair to say that this administration
    has been more active in fielding missile defense to meet the
    current and growing threat than any previous administration.
    Even as its support for missile defense remains strong, the
    administration is also contending with the global war on
    terror. With all the competing priorities, resources are
    extremely limited and funding for missile defense may have
    reached its high water mark in fiscal year 2005. However, we
    must move to ensure that our diminishing missile defense
    resources are well focused on the right priorities.
        General Cartwright, General Obering, we look forward to
    hearing about the missile defense capabilities and receiving an
    update on how the overall program is proceeding. We are going
    to make each of your statements a part of the record.
        I am delighted to turn it over now to our vice chairman for
    his remarks.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to join you
    in welcoming General Obering and General Cartwright.
        These are challenging times and very interesting times for
    missile defense. The program has seen both setbacks and
    achievements this past year. For example, last September the
    President was all set to announce the deployment of a missile
    defense system, but problems persisted in testing the system,
    and that announcement had to be delayed. More recently, we have
    seen two tests where the target was launched, but the
    interceptor never left the silo.
        I understand you are currently considering whether to
    withdraw from the high altitude airship program due to cost and
    schedule overruns. Nevertheless, we recognize that missile
    defense is technologically challenging. Despite these setbacks,
    it is important to note the many successes that have occurred
    over the past year.
        The Aegis ballistic missile defense program had another
    successful intercept last February. This brings you to five out
    of six successes for its testing. In addition, one of the Aegis
    destroyers, equipped with the capability to search and track
    missiles, is now positioned in the Sea of Japan.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the remainder of my
    statement made part of the record, if I may.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, Senator, it will be.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Today I am pleased to join our chairman in welcoming to the
    committee Lieutenant General Obering, Director of the Missile
    Defense Agency, and General Cartwright, Commander of U.S.
    Strategic Command.
        Gentlemen, you have stepped into your respective positions
    at a very interesting and challenging time for missile defense.
    The missile defense program has seen both set backs and
    achievements this past year.
        Last September, the President was set to announce the
    deployment of a limited national missile defense system.
    However, problems persist with testing the system, and the
    announcement has been delayed.
        More recently, we have seen two tests where the target was
    launched successfully, but the interceptor never left the silo
    because of problems with ground equipment.
        I understand you are currently considering whether to
    withdraw from the high altitude airship program due to cost and
    schedule overruns.
        Finally, the missile defense program was cut back by $1
    billion in the fiscal year 2006 budget request as part of the
    overall pressure to reduce the Defense Department budget.
        Nevertheless, we recognize that missile defense is
    technologically challenging, and despite these setbacks, it is
    important to note the many successes that also occurred over
    the past year.
        The aegis ballistic missile defense program had another
    successful intercept test last February, bringing it to five
    out of six successes in its testing. In addition, one of the
    aegis destroyer equipped with the capability to search and
    track missiles is now positioned in the sea of Japan.
        The airborne laser program met two successful milestones--
    the first light of the laser beam and flight of the aircraft.
    This happened after many skeptics believed the program was
    headed toward failure.
        Finally, eight long-range interceptors are in the ground
    and checked-out in Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force
    Base in California.
        The fact of the matter is that ballistic missiles are
    proliferating. They are a threat to our homeland and to those
    of our allies and friends around the world. Building an
    affordable and workable missile defense system is important for
    our national security for now and for the foreseeable future.
        Gentlemen, this committee understands the importance of a
    strong missile defense. We will continue to support your
    programs, but we will keep an ever watchful eye on the risks
    and costs of your missile defense programs.
        I look forward to hearing from you both on the fiscal year
    2006 budget request and the priorities and challenges of the
    missile defense program.

        Senator Stevens. I call on the chairman of the full
    committee, Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I join
    you in welcoming our witnesses today at this important hearing.
    I think it is important for us to remain engaged with those who
    are involved in developing and deploying comprehensive
    capability of defending against missile attacks.
        We have legislated the authority to deploy a national
    missile defense system, and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens
    and I cosponsored legislation several years ago that was
    adopted by the Congress and signed by the President calling for
    the deployment of that capability. I think you have
    demonstrated that it is feasible, that we do have the
    capabilities of making this goal come true and become a
    reality. For all of that, we congratulate you and look forward
    to your testimony about this and other capabilities you are
    working on to protect troops in the field and other assets and
    resources that we have that are a matter of supreme national
    interest. Thank you for your service.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        General Cartwright, we would be happy to have your
    statement.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL CARTWRIGHT

        General Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Inouye. I would like to take just a few minutes and make a few
    remarks. My presence here is to bring you up to date on some of
    the operational issues as the system starts to transition to
    the operational side.
        I just want to walk back. In 2004, our goal was to provide
    a rudimentary system against a limited threat. That threat was
    defined as two to five missiles coming from North Korea. What
    we were able to put together at the early part of the year and
    at the end of 2004 was what I would describe as a thin line
    system. In other words, we had a command and control system
    that reached to the critical points. We had sensors that were
    on a single thread but were end to end, and we had a weapons
    system that was at that time at one base.
        We put that system together. It was available. If there
    were an emergency, we could use it, but being a thin line
    system, it really was a system that was not set up to do both
    operations and research and development (R&D) simultaneously.
    So we have been moving back and forth on a scheduled basis
    between operations and R&D with a focus mainly on R&D in 2005.
        Our focus in 2005 was to build the system and start to put
    some depth and redundancy into the system to bring the
    assurance levels up and to bring the operational realism and
    start to train our soldiers to operate the system. Behind me is
    Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen who is my commander for missile
    defense. He has the responsibility of training the individuals
    to operate the system on a day-to-day basis.
        In the early part of the year, we asked and worked with
    Secretary Rumsfeld to set up what we called a shakedown period,
    which in Navy terms was to take the system and put operators on
    the system and start to understand the strengths and
    weaknesses, start to understand the concept of operation that
    you would employ on a day-to-day basis, things as simple as
    four people sitting at consoles working the system, what if the
    display shuts off, what if the coms do not work, starting the
    build the procedures which also builds in the confidence for
    the soldier to be able to operate the system. These were
    critical things to start to understand, get the operators
    involved.
        It also helped us shape and define what operationally
    realistic meant, what we needed to work with General Obering
    on, to make sure that the system matched up with the
    expectations of the soldiers, as we learned to operate the
    system. That has gone on since the beginning of the year. We
    have moved back and forth and scheduled activities. I think we
    are on our ninth iteration where we turn the system over to the
    operators, let them work on it for an extended period of time.
    That has given us a lot of insights and a lot of help in
    defining how we are going to use this system.
        Another question that I routinely get is why do we need a
    defensive system. We are putting this investment in. I go back
    really to my marine routes on this. If you talk to Captain
    Cartwright or Private First Class (PFC) Cartwright about having
    a balanced offensive capability with a balanced defensive
    capability, I would not send a marine into the streets of
    Fallujah without armor. It makes a difference in how the enemy
    treats you and it makes a difference in how you behave in a
    threat environment. Having a balanced offense and defense in
    the sophisticated threats that we deal in today, we can have
    snipers and terrorists on the street who hide among civilians,
    take their first shot, thinking they are going to get the
    advantage by getting that first shot off with no regret factor
    because nobody will shoot back at them and you are worried
    about ducking. Having a defense makes all the difference in the
    world in the calculus of the mind of the adversary and the mind
    of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
        When we look at the threat that we are facing today, having
    only a strategy of mutual assured destruction, or offense only,
    is just not going to be robust enough for the diverse threat
    that we face today. We have to change the calculus in the mind
    of the enemy so that that first shot, they do not believe that
    they are going to escape with that with no regret. Number two,
    they have got to question whether they are going to be
    successful or not, and number three, they have got to believe
    that we will get them if they take that first shot. It is just
    absolutely essential. So having a balanced offense and defense
    in the world we deal in today is absolutely essential.
        The shakedown for us has provided our soldiers with the
    mind set and the confidence to operate the system. 2005,
    hopefully for us, brings additional weapons, additional sensors
    so that we have the backups and the redundancies and we are not
    relying on a single string. It brings a more robust command and
    control system, and we will start to get to the point where we
    also bring into the equation, as the administration has laid
    out, our first priority of defending the Nation, our second
    priority of defending our forward deployed forces. And with the
    Aegis systems that Senator Inouye alluded to, we start to get
    the capability to bring systems to bear that can defend our
    deployed forces wherever they are in the world. And to me that
    is essential. We have got to extend that umbrella out and have
    it available for our deployed forces and then our allies and
    friends in addition.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So I stand ready for your questions. I hope that gives you
    a context in which STRATCOM has come into this equation.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of General James E. Cartwright

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: This is my first
    opportunity to appear before you as Commander of the United States
    Strategic Command. Thank you for the time you've given me to discuss
    the missions assigned to us as we continue to prosecute the Global War
    on Terror and take on the challenge of combating weapons of mass
    destruction.
        My prepared remarks cover USSTRATCOM's role in the challenging 21st
    Century environment and plans for addressing those challenges with
    capabilities to serve our nation's needs in war and in peace.

                      THE 21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

        Global interdependence--economic, political, and social--combined
    with near instantaneous global connectivity, is a trademark of the new
    century. It also heightens the importance of strong links between U.S.
    strategic objectives and regional operations. U.S. strategic objectives
    have profound influence on individuals, regions, nations, and non-state
    actors and networks. The tight linkage between U.S. strategic
    objectives and the conduct of regional operations is evident in our
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently in Asia in the
    aftermath of the tsunami. In Afghanistan, the strategic objective to
    combat global terrorism guided, as well as constrained, our regional
    decisions. The regional operations in Iraq are clearly influencing
    cultural, economic, and security considerations around the globe.
        Our adversaries are using asymmetric approaches; exploiting social,
    political, and economic vulnerabilities to avoid confronting superior
    U.S. forces head on. We continue to see increases in the speed and
    deceptive scale of proliferation of potential weapons of mass
    destruction, including delivery and concealment capabilities. We see
    adversaries who would use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
    suicide bombs against their own people and infrastructure, as well as
    against deployed multinational forces. These adversaries have easy
    access to the same global technology base we do, and can exploit the
    same communication and information resources as the American public.
    They have proven they are an intelligent and adaptable enemy.
        All operations, while regional in execution, have global
    consequence and therefore require a global perspective. Regional
    combatant commanders, who are responsible and accountable for
    conducting combat and peacekeeping operations in their areas of
    responsibility (AORs), have long depended upon support provided from
    outside their AORs. Much of that support, which in the past was
    provided on an ad hoc basis, has now been codified in the Unified
    Command Plan as a USSTRATCOM global responsibility. We are positioning
    USSTRATCOM to advance a distinctly global and strategic perspective on
    current and emerging capabilities necessary to deter threats to our way
    of life, particularly those threats involving weapons of mass
    destruction. USSTRATCOM will enable combatant commander's regional
    operations through realization of a comprehensive set of global mission
    capabilities, soundly integrated to achieve more effective and
    efficient execution.
        We look upon this responsibility as both an exciting challenge and
    a solemn obligation to the regional combatant commanders, the American
    men and women who serve in their AORs and to the American people.

                                GLOBAL ENABLERS

        21st Century operations are fundamentally different from those of
    the last century. Combat operations are being conducted in rapidly
    changing circumstances, shifting from humanitarian operations to
    intense firefights within a few hundred yards of each other with little
    or no warning. This dynamic nature is matched by a varying composition
    of assisting partners. We must be ready to conduct integrated,
    distributed operations using global and regional military forces. In
    many situations, these forces will be augmented by other U.S.
    Government personnel, coalition and commercial partners, and possibly,
    non-governmental organizations. To plan and effectively execute these
    types of distributed, agile and integrated operations, the regional
    combatant commands increasingly rely on multiple capabilities the
    global commands must support or provide.
        The Unified Command Plan expands USSTRATCOM responsibilities
    through the assignment of global mission areas that span levels of
    authority, cross regional boundaries and intersect with various
    national and international agencies. USSTRATCOM's missions are:
      --Global deterrence;
      --Global support from space-based operations;
      --Global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
      --Global strike;
      --Global information and network operations;
      --Global command and control;
      --Global integrated missile defense coordination; and
      --Globally combating weapons of mass destruction.
        Achieving the full potential of these missions is contingent upon
    identifying the right capabilities mix and sustaining our global reach
    through space. However, without the context of advanced situational
    awareness, and the power of collaboration, even the best tools may be
    insufficient to deter and defeat a determined adversary. We are placing
    an emphasis on the following global enablers:
        The New Triad.--USSTRATCOM supports The New Triad concept; a
    strategic way ahead in pursuit of a more diverse set of offensive and
    defensive warfighting capabilities. We are active participants in all
    three legs of The New Triad: offensive nuclear and non-nuclear strike
    (including non-kinetic), passive and active defenses, and a defense
    infrastructure capable of building and sustaining all offensive and
    defensive elements, including the critical support areas of command and
    control and intelligence.
        Coupled with improved collaboration and shared global awareness,
    The New Triad concept will enable more precisely tailored global strike
    operations. With a full spectrum of nuclear, conventional and non-
    kinetic options available, regional combatant commanders will be
    enabled to achieve specific local effects against high value targets in
    the context of the strategic objective.
        While we are confident in our ability to support effective global
    strike operations today, we must continue to evolve that capability to
    meet the demands of an uncertain tomorrow. For example, I intend to
    conduct experiments to better understand the value of weapon accuracy
    within a range of stressing environments. If modeling and testing
    confirm the value of such capability, this may lead to new thoughts on
    the balance between nuclear and conventional strike alternatives.
        The new responsibilities assigned to USSTRATCOM have required the
    command to broaden its Cold War focus from deterring nuclear or large-
    scale conventional aggression to becoming a major contributor to the
    much broader defense strategy. Nuclear weapons; however, continue to be
    important, particularly for assuring allies and friends of U.S.
    security commitments, dissuading arms competition, deterring hostile
    leaders who are willing to accept great risk and cost, and for holding
    at risk those targets that cannot be addressed by other means. As
    steward of the nation's strategic nuclear deterrent, we have two
    specific areas of focus--rationalizing our nuclear forces, and
    providing for a relevant nuclear stockpile in the context of The New
    Triad. At the same time we will continue to evaluate and provide a
    range of options, both nuclear and non-nuclear, relevant to the threat
    and military operations.
        The New Triad concept presents an opportunity to reduce our
    reliance on nuclear weapons through the evaluation of alternative
    weapons, defensive capabilities and associated risk. It is our intent
    to have the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review address nuclear issues,
    and the associated infrastructure, to determine transformation
    requirements for our nuclear capabilities in the 21st Century. We will
    look at rationalizing our nuclear forces as an element of the overall
    force structure and the proper tailoring of nuclear effects as part of
    the broad spectrum of national power. These assessments will be
    important to future operational planning as well as future budget
    plans.
        Space.--The importance of the space mission to our national
    security cannot be overstated. The U.S. economy, our quality of life,
    and our nation's defense are all linked to our freedom of action in
    space. For example, satellites are at the heart of routine financial
    activities such as simple automatic teller machine operations or
    complicated international currency and stock market transactions. The
    telecommunication industry is heavily vested in space. Commercial
    airliners, container ships, trains, trucks, police, fire departments
    and ambulances have also become highly dependent upon space-based
    global positioning systems to enhance their ability to safely deliver
    people, goods and services. The fact is, our dependency on space
    increases every day--a fact not lost on our adversaries. This growing
    national dependence on space-based and space-enabled capabilities
    establishes a true imperative to protect our space assets and our
    ability to operate freely in, and from, space.
        We currently enjoy an asymmetric advantage in space, but our
    adversaries are gaining on us. Our space support infrastructure is
    aging and, in some instances, on the verge of becoming obsolete. We
    will continue to face additional challenges as other nations exploit
    new technologies and capabilities in attempts to bridge the gap between
    them and us.
        The space environment itself is also rapidly changing. For example,
    the number of objects in-orbit increases every month, while the size of
    those objects decreases. This is challenging our space surveillance
    technology, developed in the latter half of the 20th Century, because
    it was not designed to detect or track the current magnitude of new,
    smaller objects, including micro-satellites. This increases the chances
    of collisions, which threatens our manned spaceflight program; opens
    the door for unwarned action against U.S. satellites by adversaries;
    and limits our ability to protect our space assets.
        We must do a better job of leveraging the capabilities of our space
    assets--in DOD, national and commercial systems. We must also maintain
    the ability to protect our own space assets and capabilities, both
    actively and passively, while denying our adversaries the military use
    of space--at the time and place of our choosing.
        In order to bring these elements of space control together, our
    near-term plan is to work with the various space programs to identify
    potential gaps and make sure existing information and applications are
    available and provided to authorized users on a global network. This
    plan will serve as the basis for a concept of operations to exploit
    information from our space assets, providing space situational
    awareness to the regional combatant commands.
        Distributed Operations.--For distributed, integrated operations,
    dominant situational awareness is an imperative--globally, regionally,
    and locally. It must exist across the full breadth and depth of
    operations, from planning and combat through post-conflict
    reconstruction, and ultimately, peacetime.
        For our forces to effectively employ collaborative capabilities and
    capitalize upon situational awareness, we must enable them to create
    pictures of the battlespace tailored to their specific needs--what we
    refer to as User Defined Operating Pictures. It is USSTRATCOM's job to
    provide the global capabilities to enhance situational awareness,
    facilitate collaborative planning, and provide a basic User Defined
    Operating Picture capability for all of the combatant commands.
        Many of the capabilities required for agile, distributed operations
    will be facilitated by space and enabled by a global information
    environment with ubiquitous, assured access to information, when and
    where any combatant commander needs it. To achieve this vision, the old
    mantra to provide information on a ``need to know'' basis, must be
    replaced by a ``need to share.'' Critical information that the
    warfighter didn't know existed, and the owner of the information didn't
    know was important, must be made available within a global information
    environment easily accessible to commanders at all levels.
        Interdependent Capabilities.--Our action plan for global command
    and control focuses on ensuring the all-source information needed for
    effective operations is available to all theaters. For the global
    Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) mission, that also
    means developing integrated and persistent systems capable of
    supporting precision targeting. USSTRATCOM has the lead for
    coordinating global ISR capabilities and will be working closely with
    the regional combatant commanders, Joint Forces Command and the
    services to develop the associated strategy.
        The Department's net-centric global information services, currently
    in development, are essential to our global missions. These services
    will connect global and regional applications and improve both
    horizontal and vertical information integration.
        We are developing a prioritized plan for transitioning away from
    stove-piped legacy systems to capabilities that support broader
    information and applications access. Included in this plan are actions
    focused on leveraging existing legacy applications and data by making
    them more broadly accessible. Each user will be allowed the flexibility
    to select from any available data source, anywhere on the network,
    those objects most useful to them at any particular time. Additionally,
    any new data source will be available the moment it comes onto the
    network, rather than requiring a modification to existing systems, as
    is the case today. USSTRATCOM is an advocate for net-centricity. Our
    focus is on:
      --Capability to enable our ``internet-like'' environment and access
            to information;
      --Realization of a high-bandwidth, ubiquitous communications backbone
            to deliver information with high assurance and low latency; and
      --Robust information assurance required to defend our networks and
            our information.
        Creating a collaborative structure is more than just designing and
    disseminating tools--it is also about changing human behavior. Our
    objective is a global, persistent, 24/7 collaborative environment--
    comprising people, systems, and tools. Our future structure must
    support real time command and control at both the global and local
    levels as well as enable dynamic, adaptive planning and execution in
    which USSTRATCOM, the regional combatant commanders, and other
    geographically dispersed commanders can plan and execute operations
    together. Our collaborative environment must also provide the
    capability to ``connect all the dots''--enemy dots, friendly dots,
    neutral dots, contextual dots--all the dots that matter--as they
    appear, rather than wait for a post-event analysis when all of the
    different data stores can be opened. With improved collaboration and
    shared awareness, we can more effectively conduct operations using the
    full spectrum of capabilities to achieve desired, focused effects
    against high value targets.
        In that regard, we are actively assessing the currently available
    collaborative environment and processes and investigating potential
    pilot programs to encourage organizational information sharing to build
    trust in shared information. Fundamental to this issue is the
    establishment of data tagging standards and associated information
    assurance policies.
        With regard to sharing information, we are in some respects
    navigating uncharted waters. While the value of sharing information
    with allies, coalition partners and other Federal departments and
    agencies is well understood, sharing information with industry or other
    private sources presents proprietary, intellectual property and privacy
    concerns which are not well understood. Such information has the
    potential to be of great value to USSTRATCOM and the regional combatant
    commanders in accomplishing our missions. We will be attentive to the
    actions currently being taken throughout the Federal government in
    response to Executive Order 13356, ``Strengthening the Sharing of
    Terrorism Information To Protect Americans,'' which may provide us
    valuable insight and guidance in this sensitive area.

                        BUILDING AN ASYMMETRIC ADVANTAGE

        In addition to our role as steward of the nation's nuclear forces
    and guardian of global deterrence, USSTRATCOM now has the
    responsibility for working across regional boundaries to address
    threats in a global perspective. To achieve the asymmetric advantage we
    desire requires us to build the interdependent, collaborative,
    operational environment we've envisioned. It is our responsibility to
    provide global services and global context to the regional combatant
    commands and their deployed forces so we are collectively a more
    effective force--for warfighting, peace and all possible combinations
    of both.
        New Command Structure.--As the latest step in maturing our approach
    to fulfilling USSTRATCOM's global mission responsibilities we are
    implementing a new command structure. This structure is critical to the
    asymmetric advantage we seek, leveraging essential competencies of
    associated components and key supporting agencies through an
    distributed, collaborative environment.
        Rather than creating additional organizational layers, we are
    bringing existing commands and agencies under our global mission
    umbrella through the establishment of Joint Functional Component
    Commands. These interdependent Joint Functional Component Commands will
    have responsibility for the day to day planning and execution of our
    primary mission areas: space and global strike, intelligence
    surveillance and reconnaissance, network warfare, integrated missile
    defense and combating weapons of mass destruction.
        USSTRATCOM headquarters retains responsibility for nuclear command
    and control. Additionally, headquarters will provide strategic level
    integrated and synchronized planning to ensure full-spectrum mission
    accomplishment. USSTRATCOM will also advocate for the capabilities
    necessary to accomplish these missions.
        This construct will allow us to leverage key, in-place expertise
    from across the Department of Defense and make it readily available to
    all regional combatant commanders. Our vision is for the combatant
    commanders to view any Joint Functional Component Command as a means by
    which to access all of the capabilities resident in the USSTRATCOM
    global mission set. Anytime a Combatant Commander queries one of our
    component commands, they will establish strategic visibility across our
    entire structure through our collaborative environment. The fully
    integrated response USSTRATCOM provides should offer the Combatant
    Commander greater situational awareness and more options than
    originally thought available. Specific Joint Functional Component
    Command responsibilities include:
      --Space and Global Strike.--The Commander STRATAF (8th Air Force)
            will serve as the Joint Functional Component Commander for
            Space and Global Strike. This component will integrate all
            elements of military power to conduct, plan, and present global
            strike effects and also direct the deliberate planning and
            execution of assigned space operation missions. For plans not
            aligned with a specific mission set, the Joint Functional
            Component Command for Space and Global Strike is tasked to work
            in close coordination with USSTRATCOM headquarters as the lead
            component responsible for the integration and coordination of
            capabilities provided by all other Joint Functional Component
            Commands.
      --Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance.--The Director,
            Defense Intelligence Agency will be dual-hatted to lead the
            Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Joint Functional
            Component Command. This component is responsible for
            coordinating global intelligence collection to address DOD
            worldwide operations and national intelligence requirements. It
            will serve as the epicenter for planning, execution and
            assessment of the military's global Intelligence, Surveillance,
            and Reconnaissance operations; a key enabler to achieving
            global situational awareness.
      --Network Warfare.--The Director, National Security Agency will also
            be dual-hatted to lead the Network Warfare Joint Functional
            Component Command. This component will facilitate cooperative
            engagement with other national entities in computer network
            defense and offensive information warfare as part of our global
            information operations.
          Our coordinated approach to information operations involves two
            other important supporting commands. The Director, Defense
            Information Systems Agency also heads the Joint Task Force for
            Global Network Operations. This organization is responsible for
            operating and defending our worldwide information networks, a
            function closely aligned with the efforts of the Joint
            Functional Component Command for Network Warfare. Additionally,
            the Commander, Joint Information Operations Center coordinates
            the non-network related pillars of information operations:
            psychological operations, electronic warfare, operations
            security and military deception. Both the Joint Task Force for
            Global Network Operations and the Commander, Joint Information
            Operations Center will be full members of the USSTRATCOM
            distributed, collaborative environment.
      --Integrated Missile Defense.--The Commander, Army Space and Missile
            Defense Command will head the Integrated Missile Defense Joint
            Functional Component Command. This component will be
            responsible for ensuring we meet USSTRATCOM's Unified Command
            Plan responsibilities for planning, integrating, and
            coordinating global missile defense operations and support. It
            will conduct the day-to-day operations of assigned forces;
            coordinating activities with associated combatant commands,
            other STRATCOM Joint Functional Components and the efforts of
            the Missile Defense Agency. The Joint Functional Component
            Command for Integrated Missile Defense is a key element of the
            ``defenses'' leg of The New Triad concept.
      --Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The Secretary of Defense
            recently assigned USSTRATCOM responsibility for integrating and
            synchronizing DOD's efforts for combating weapons of mass
            destruction. As this initiative is in its very formative
            stages, we have yet to formalize any specific componency
            structure. However, we anticipate establishing a formal
            relationship with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency as an
            initial starting point.
        This new componency structure is in its infancy and will take
    several months to fully realize. There are detailed issues to work
    through, including the proper distribution of subject matter expertise
    and an assessment of expanding relationships with other U.S. Government
    departments.
        A final element of our evolving organizational structure involves
    developing relationships with the private sector to build upon efforts
    under the Partnership to Defeat Terrorism. This important partnership
    with the private sector supports many of our national objectives and
    crosses into relatively uncharted territory.
      --Partnership to Defeat Terrorism.--The United States has achieved
            success in the Global War on Terrorism by attacking terrorist
            infrastructure, resources and sanctuaries. Nevertheless, our
            adversaries continue to plan and conduct operations driven by
            their assessment of our vulnerabilities. The main vulnerability
            requiring our constant vigilance is the nation's economy, and
            one need look no further than the economic aftershock
            attributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks to affirm this
            assertion. The risk is accentuated given the global
            underpinnings of our economic structure. Even a small-scale
            terrorist attack against a lower tier provider in a distant
            land can have wide-ranging and pervasive economic implications.
          Given the evolving understanding of terrorist's use of global
            processes, the Partnership to Defeat Terrorism was created to
            intercede on behalf of combatant commanders, among others, and
            positively affect outcomes through connections with the private
            sector. Since November 2001, the Partnership to Defeat
            Terrorism has successfully combined private sector global
            processes with other elements of national power to help fight
            global terrorism as part of USSTRATCOM's global mission
            responsibilities. This fruitful relationship with the private
            sector has proven effective on a number of occasions and has
            garnered the support of influential leaders both within and
            outside government.
          Yet, the Partnership to Defeat Terrorism is somewhat of an ad hoc
            process based on trusted relationships. As such, the value of
            the program is directly related to the availability of the
            participants. USSTRATCOM was recently contacted by a group of
            people from various non-military sectors, advocating the
            creation of a working group to formalize this ad hoc program to
            begin planning a more permanent approach for the long-term.
          On a strategic level, the value of such an effort is the open
            realization that all elements of national power, which have not
            traditionally operated in a synchronized and coordinated role
            in National Security, understand the urgent need for their
            involvement.
        Full realization of the benefits inherent in the distributed,
    interdependent organizational structure described above requires an
    effective collaborative operation. A true collaborative environment
    provides us the asymmetric advantage necessary to deter and defeat the
    agile adversaries we face in the 21st Century environment. In the
    future, these skills will take on even greater importance as we broaden
    our partner base within the U.S. government, with coalition partners,
    commercial partners, academia and others, including non-government
    organizations.

                       ACHIEVING THE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE

        Agile, responsive distributed operations, enabled by meaningful
    information exchange, shared objectives and shared situational
    awareness, are key to the successful performance of USSTRATCOM's global
    missions. We have assessed the capability gaps in our global mission
    areas and have developed action plans, working with our partner
    commands, to improve our collective ability to carry out operations at
    all levels.
        USSTRATCOM's strategy is focused on:
      --Stewardship of the strategic nuclear stockpile;
      --Defending against asymmetric approaches used by our adversaries,
            including weapons of mass destruction;
      --Responding effectively in a rapidly changing combat operations
            environment;
      --Achieving prompt, predictable precision operations;
      --Coordinating with U.S. and private sector partners in a
            collaborative environment;
        Implementing this strategy relies on new and enhanced capabilities,
    including:
      --Dominant situational awareness,
      --A ubiquitous, assured, global information environment,
      --Dynamic, persistent, trustworthy collaborative planning,
      --User Defined Operating Pictures, using distributed, globally
            available information, and
      --A culture that embraces ``need to share'' rather than ``need to
            know.''
        We are not there yet. Working with our partner commands, we have
    developed plans to improve our global capabilities. We need your
    continued support to deliver the capabilities needed to combat the
    threats of the 21st Century. We need your support for:
      --Pursuit of high capacity, internet-like capability to extend the
            Global Information Grid to deployed/mobile users worldwide;
      --Adoption of data tagging standards and information assurance
            policies to increase government-wide trusted information
            sharing;
      --Technology experiments to enhance our understanding of the value of
            accuracy and stressing environments for current and future
            weapons.
        USSTRATCOM recognizes what has to be done to be a global command in
    support of the warfighter. We are aggressively moving out on actions to
    ensure USSTRATCOM fulfills our full set of global responsibilities,
    supporting our national security needs in peace and in war.
        Thank you for your continued support.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        General Obering, I was pleased to visit Fort Greely last
    month and delighted to have you here today.

             STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL HENRY A. OBERING, III

        General Obering. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr.
    Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran. It is a privilege to
    be here this morning. As you said, we have had many
    accomplishments and a few disappointments since my predecessor
    last addressed this subcommittee, but overall the missile
    defense program remains on track.
        Threats from weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
    missiles continue to present grave security concerns. Now, to
    deal with these, we are developing and incrementally fielding a
    joint, integrated, and layered ballistic missile defense system
    to defend the United States, our deployed forces, our allies,
    and our friends against all ranges of ballistic missiles. We
    have put the foundation of this system in place today.
        We are requesting $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2006, or
    roughly $1 billion less than our fiscal year 2005 request. This
    funding balances continued testing and system improvement with
    the fielding and sustainment of the long-range ground-based
    midcourse defense components, our short- to intermediate-range
    defense involving the Aegis ships with their interceptors, and
    the supporting radars, command, control, battle management, and
    communication capabilities.
        Now, the successful prototype interceptor test that we
    conducted in 2001 and 2002 gave us the confidence to proceed
    with the development and fielding of the system that relies
    primarily on the hit-to-kill technologies. While our testing
    has continued to build our confidence in the system, long-range
    interceptor aborts in our last recent test have been very
    disappointing. These aborts were due to a minor software
    problem in the first test and a ground support arm that failed
    to retract in the second. While these failures do not threaten
    the basic viability of the system, I have taken strong action
    to address them, which I have outlined in my written statement.
        We remain confident in the system's basic design, its hit-
    to-kill effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability.
    Nevertheless, neither you, the American public, nor our enemies
    will believe in our ground-based Intercontinental Ballistic
    Missile (ICBM) defense until we demonstrate its effectiveness
    by successfully conducting additional operationally realistic
    flight tests.
        In planning our future test program, the Director of
    Operational Test and Evaluation and I have jointly approved an
    integrated master test plan effective through 2007. The plan
    includes combined developmental and operational testing with
    criteria for operational realism incorporated. Our pace in
    executing this flight test program for the long-range system
    will depend, however, on the recommendations of a mission
    readiness task force which I chartered and those
    recommendations are due in the coming weeks.
        We are on track with our initial fielding of the ground-
    based and sea-based block 2004 interceptors, sensors, and the
    command, control, battle management, and communications
    components. Working closely with our warfighter partners, we
    have certified missile defense crews and put in place logistic
    support infrastructure and operational support centers. We have
    been in a shakedown period, as General Cartwright said, since
    last October to get us to the point where we could use this
    developmental system more routinely in an operational mode.
        Over the next decade, we will move toward greater sensor
    and interceptor robustness and mobility while adding a boost-
    phase defense layer. We will continue development, testing,
    fielding, and support for the ground-based midcourse defense
    and the Aegis ballistic missile defense elements. We are also
    upgrading additional early warning radars and developing two
    new sensors, a very powerful sea-based X-band radar and a
    transportable X-band radar for forward basing. The terminal
    high altitude area defense program will resume flight testing
    this year and will continue into fiscal year 2006. In 2007, we
    plan to improve our sensor capabilities and coverage with the
    deployment of another forward-based X-band radar and the launch
    of two space tracking and surveillance system test bed
    satellites.
        At the moment, we are preserving decision flexibility with
    respect to our boost-phase defense programs. The airborne laser
    has recently enjoyed success, achieving first light and first
    flight milestones, but many challenges remain and we still need
    an alternative. The kinetic energy interceptor provides that
    alternative, and I have restructured that program to focus on
    the successful demonstration of a high acceleration booster
    flight in 2008. If successful, it could also provide us an
    alternative mobile approach for our next generation boosters.
        Finally, we have been working closely with a number of our
    allied and friendly governments to make missile defense a key
    element of our security relationships. We have signed framework
    agreements with Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and
    are pursuing closer collaboration with Russia.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this subcommittee
    for its continued tremendous support. I also want to thank the
    thousands of dedicated and talented Americans working on the
    missile defense program. I believe that we are on the right
    track to deliver the unprecedented capabilities that we will
    need to close off a major avenue of vulnerability for this
    Nation.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering, III

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is an
    honor to be here today to present the Department of Defense's fiscal
    year 2006 Missile Defense Program and budget. The Missile Defense
    Agency mission remains one of developing and incrementally fielding a
    joint, integrated, and multilayered Ballistic Missile Defense system to
    defend the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and
    friends against ballistic missiles of all ranges by engaging them in
    the boost, midcourse, and terminal phases of flight.
        Our program, reflected in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission,
    is structured to balance the early fielding elements of this system
    with its continued steady improvement through an evolutionary
    development and test approach. The budget also balances our
    capabilities across an evolving threat spectrum that includes rogue
    nations with increasing ballistic missile expertise.
        We are requesting $7.8 billion to support our program of work in
    fiscal year 2006, which is approximately $1 billion less than the
    fiscal year 2005 request. About $1.4 billion covers the continued
    fielding and sustainment of our block increments of long-range ground-
    based midcourse defense components; our short- to intermediate-range
    defense involving Aegis ships with their interceptors; as well as all
    of the supporting radars, command, control, battle management and
    communication capabilities. About $6.4 billion will be invested in the
    development foundation for continued testing and evolution of the
    system.
        To provide the context for our budget submission, I would like to
    review what we have accomplished over the past year. And while I
    believe the Missile Defense Program is on the right track to deliver
    multilayered, integrated capabilities to counter current and emerging
    ballistic missile threats, I am planning to make some program
    adjustments in light of our two recent flight test failures.
        I also will explain the rationale behind our testing and fielding
    activities and address the next steps in our evolutionary ballistic
    missile defense program.

                       THE EVOLVING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

        The threat we face from proliferating and evolving ballistic
    missile systems and associated technologies and expertise continues
    unabated. There were nearly 100 foreign ballistic missile launches
    around the world in 2004. This is nearly double the number conducted in
    2003 and slightly greater than the number of launches in 2002. More
    than 60 launches last year involved short-range ballistic missiles,
    over ten involved medium-range missiles, and nearly twenty involved
    land- and sea-based long-range ballistic missiles.
        Operations Desert Storm (1991) and Iraqi Freedom (2003)
    demonstrated that missile defenses must be integrated into our regional
    military responses if we are to provide adequate protection of
    coalition forces, friendly population centers, and military assets. We
    must expect that troops deployed to regional hotspots will continue to
    encounter increasingly sophisticated ballistic missile threats.
        Nuclear-capable North Korea and nuclear-emergent Iran have shown
    serious interest in longer-range missiles. They underscore the severity
    of the proliferation problem. Our current and near-term missile defense
    fielding activities are a direct response to these dangers. There are
    also other ballistic missile threats to the homeland that we must
    address in the years ahead, including the possibility of an off-shore
    launch.
        We have had recent experience with tragic hostage situations
    involving individuals, and we have witnessed how the enemy has
    attempted to use hostages to coerce or blackmail us. Imagine now an
    entire city held hostage by a state or a terrorist organization. This
    is a grim prospect, and we must make every effort to prevent it from
    occurring. Any missile carrying a nuclear or biological payload could
    inflict catastrophic damage. I believe the ability to protect against
    threats of coercion and actively defend our forces, friends and allies,
    and homeland against ballistic missiles will play an increasingly
    critical role in our national security strategy.
    Missile Defense Approach--Layered Defense
        We believe that highly integrated layered defenses will improve the
    chances of engaging and destroying a ballistic missile and its payload.
    This approach to missile defense also makes deployment of
    countermeasures much more difficult. If the adversary has a successful
    countermeasure deployment or tactic in the boost phase, for example, he
    may play right into the defense we have set up in midcourse. Layered
    defenses provide defense in depth and create an environment intended to
    frustrate an attacker. The elements of this system play to one
    another's strengths while covering one another's weaknesses.
        With the initial fielding last year of the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense and Aegis surveillance and track capabilities of this
    integrated system, we are establishing a limited defensive capability
    for the United States against a long-range North Korean missile threat.
    At the same time, we are building up our inventory of mobile
    interceptors to protect coalition forces, allies and friends against
    shorter-range threats. With the cooperation of our allies and friends,
    we plan to evolve this defensive capability to improve defenses against
    all ranges of threats in all phases of flight and expand it over time
    with additional interceptors, sensors, and defensive 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 and interceptor mobility. In line with our
    multilayer approach, we will expand terminal defense protection and
    place increasing emphasis on boost phase defenses, which today are
    still early in development.
    Initial Fielding of Block 2004
        Since my predecessor last appeared before this committee, we have
    made tremendous progress and have had a number of accomplishments. We
    also came up short of our expectations in a few areas.
        We stated last year that, by the end of 2004, we would begin
    fielding the initial elements of our integrated ballistic missile
    defense system. We have met nearly all of our objectives. We have
    installed six ground-based interceptors in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska
    and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. We completed the
    upgrade of the Cobra Dane radar in Alaska and the modification of seven
    Aegis ships for long-range surveillance and tracking support. These
    elements have been fully connected to the fire control system and are
    supported by an extensive command, control, battle management and
    communications infrastructure. In addition, we have put in place the
    required logistics support infrastructure and support centers.
        Since October 2004, we have been in a ``shakedown'' or check-out
    period similar to that used as part of the commissioning of a U.S. Navy
    ship before it enters the operational fleet. 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 if called upon to do so. We have
    exercised the command, fire control, battle management and
    communication capabilities critical to the operation of the system. The
    Aegis ships have been periodically put on station in the Sea of Japan
    to provide long-range surveillance and tracking data to our battle
    management system. We have fully integrated the Cobra Dane radar into
    the system, and it is ready for operational use even as it continues to
    play an active role in our test program by providing data on targets of
    opportunity. Finally, we have executed a series of exercises with the
    system that involves temporarily putting the system in a launch-ready
    state. This has enabled us to learn a great deal about the system's
    operability. It also allows us to demonstrate our ability to transition
    from development to operational support and back. This is very
    important since we will continue to improve the capabilities of the
    system over time, even as we remain ready to take advantage of its
    inherent defensive capability should the need arise.
    Completing Block 2004
        Today we remain basically on track with interceptor fielding for
    the Test Bed. We have recovered from the 2003 propellant accident,
    which last year affected the long-range ground-based interceptors as
    well as the Aegis Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and Terminal High Altitude
    Area Defense, or THAAD, booster production. We should have ten more
    interceptors emplaced in Alaska by December of this year. In October,
    we received the first Standard Missile-3 for deployment aboard an Aegis
    ship. To date, we have five of these interceptors with a total of eight
    scheduled to be delivered by the end of the year. By then, we will also
    have outfitted two Aegis cruisers with this engagement capability. So,
    in addition to providing surveillance and tracking support to the
    integrated ballistic missile defense system, Aegis will soon provide a
    flexible sea-mobile capability to defeat short- to medium-range
    ballistic missiles in their midcourse phase.
        Our sensor program is also on track. The Beale radar in California
    is receiving final software upgrades this spring and will be fully
    integrated into the system. We are now testing a transportable X-band
    radar, which can be forward-deployed this year to enhance our
    surveillance and tracking capabilities. Our most powerful sensor
    capability, the Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX) will be traversing the
    Atlantic and Pacific Oceans this year, on its way to Adak, Alaska,
    where it will be ported. This radar is so capable that, if it were
    sitting in Chesapeake Bay, it could detect a baseball-sized object in
    space over San Francisco. This sea-mobile midcourse radar will allow us
    to increase the complexity of our tests by enabling different intercept
    geometries. And when we deploy it in the Pacific Ocean, it also will
    have an inherent operational capability against threats from Asia.
    Finally, the RAF Fylingdales early warning radar in the United Kingdom
    will be fully integrated for missile defense purposes by early 2006 and
    will provide the initial sensor coverage needed against Middle East
    threats.
        BMD elements will remain part of the system Test Bed even after we
    field them for initial capability. However, the Missile Defense Agency
    does not operate the BMD system. Our job is to provide a militarily
    useful capability to the warfighter. Because the BMD system is
    integrated and involves different Services, the MDA will continue to
    manage system configuration to ensure adequate integration of new
    components and elements and the continued smooth operation of the
    system.
        For these reasons, Congress mandated the Agency to maintain
    configuration control over PAC-3 and the Medium Extended Air Defense
    System (MEADS) following their transfer to the Army. Regarding the
    transition of the system elements, we use several models. Each
    transition, to include time and method of transfer, will be unique. In
    some cases, it may not be appropriate to transfer a BMD system element
    to a Service. The Sea-Based X-band Radar, for example, will likely
    remain a Missile Defense Agency Test Bed asset and be made available
    for operational use as appropriate. In other words, the Services and
    the Missile Defense Agency will have shared responsibilities and will
    continue to work with the Secretary of Defense, the Services, and the
    Component Commanders to arrange appropriate element transfer on a case
    by case basis.
    Building Confidence through Spiral Testing
        The development and fielding of Block 2004 was initiated based on
    the confidence we built in our test program between 2000 and 2002. We
    successfully conducted four out of five intercept tests using
    prototypes of the ground-based interceptors we have in place today
    against long-range ballistic missile targets. In addition, in 2002 and
    2003, we successfully conducted three intercept tests against shorter-
    range targets using an earlier version of the sea-based Aegis SM-3
    interceptors we are deploying today. These tests demonstrated the basic
    viability and effectiveness of a system that relies primarily on hit-
    to-kill technologies to defeat in-flight missiles. In fact, we had
    learned as much as we could with the prototypes and decided it was time
    to restructure the program to accelerate the testing of the initial
    operational configurations of the system elements.
        In 2003 and 2004, we had three successful flight tests of the
    operational long-range booster now emplaced in the silos in Alaska and
    California. The booster performed exactly as predicted by our models
    and simulations. In addition, between 2002 and 2004, we successfully
    executed 58 flight tests, 67 ground tests, simulations, and exercises,
    all of which have continued to bolster our confidence in the basic
    ballistic missile defense capabilities. In the past year, however, we
    had several concerns with quality control and, as a result, executed
    only two long-range flight tests since last spring.
        The interceptor launch aborts in Integrated Flight Test (IFT)-13C
    last December and IFT-14 this past February were disappointments, but
    they were not, by any measure, serious setbacks. The anomaly that
    occurred in IFT-13C, in fact, is a very rare occurrence. As the
    interceptor prepares to launch, its on-board computer does a health and
    status check of various components. In that built-in test, interceptor
    operations were automatically terminated because an overly stringent
    parameter measuring the communications rate between the flight computer
    and its guidance components was not met. The launch control system
    actually worked as it was designed when it shut the interceptor down. A
    simple software update to relax that parameter corrected the problem.
    The fix was verified during subsequent ground tests and the next launch
    attempt. We did enjoy some success in the test. We successfully tracked
    the target and fed that information into the fire control system, a
    process that allowed us to successfully build a weapons task plan that
    we then loaded and, which was accepted, into the interceptor's
    computer.
        In February we used the same interceptor to attempt another flight
    test. Again, the target successfully launched. The interceptor
    successfully powered up and worked through built-in test procedures and
    was fully prepared to launch. Again, the system successfully tracked
    the target and fed the information to the fire control system, which
    generated a weapons task plan accepted by the interceptor's computer.
    This time, however, a piece of ground support equipment did not
    properly clear, and the launch control system did not issue a launch
    enable command.
        Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that while these test aborts were
    major disappointments, they were not major technical setbacks. We
    maintain our confidence in the system's basic design, its hit-to-kill
    effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability. Because of our
    recent test launch aborts, I chartered an independent team to review
    our test processes, procedures and management. They reported their
    findings to me last month. They indicated that we had successfully
    demonstrated the hit-to-kill technology and achieved a major national
    accomplishment in fielding initial defensive capabilities. The team
    described the rapid development and initial deployment of the system as
    comparable to other major military efforts, such as the initial
    deployment of the Minuteman and Polaris ballistic missiles.
        With the basic functionality demonstrated, the independent review
    team believed that we should now enter a ``Performance and Reliability
    Verification Phase,'' in which mission assurance becomes the number one
    objective. They noted that our system reliability is based on multiple
    intercept attempts per engagement, whereas our system testing focuses
    on the performance of a single interceptor. They also observed that our
    flight testing has a strategic significance well beyond that normally
    associated with military systems' development.
        The team recommended specific improvements in five areas. First,
    increase rigor in the flight test certification process, to include the
    addition of a concurrent and accountable independent assessment of test
    readiness. Second, strengthen system engineering by tightening
    contractor configuration management, enforcing process and workmanship
    standards, and ensuring proper specification flow down. Third, add
    ground test units and expand ground qualification testing. Fourth, hold
    prime contractor functional organizations (such as engineering, quality
    and mission assurance experts) accountable for supporting the program.
    And finally, ensure program executability by stabilizing baselines and
    establishing event-driven schedules.
        I also named the current Aegis BMD program director, Rear Admiral
    Kate Paige, as the Agency's Director of Mission Readiness with full
    authority to implement the corrections needed to ensure return to a
    successful flight test program. We have pursued a comprehensive and
    integrated approach to missile defense testing under the current
    program and are gradually making our tests more complex. Prior to the
    establishment of the Mission Readiness Task Force, we had planned a
    very aggressive test program for the next two years. That test plan
    involved flying the ground-based interceptor to gain confidence in our
    corrections and conducting two more long-range interceptor tests this
    calendar year. These flight tests included: an engagement sequence
    using an operationally configured Aegis ship to provide tracking
    information to a long-range interceptor and an engagement sequence
    using an interceptor launched from an operational site, Vandenberg;
    tracking information provided by an operational radar at Beale; and a
    target launched out of the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. We also
    planned to fly targets across the face of the Cobra Dane radar in the
    Aleutians and Beale in California. However, all follow-on GMD flight
    tests are on hold pending the implementation of the Independent Review
    Team recommendations and a return to flight recommendation by the
    Mission Readiness Task Force.
        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 spiral testing approach that cycles results into our
    spiral development activities. That is the very nature of spiral
    development. This approach also means fielding test assets in
    operational configurations. This dramatically reduces time from
    development to operations, which is critical in a mission area where
    this nation has been defenseless. Nevertheless, neither you, the
    American public nor our enemies will believe in our ground-based ICBM
    defense until we demonstrate its effectiveness by successfully
    conducting additional operationally realistic flight tests.
        In fiscal year 2006, we are adding new test objectives and using
    more complex scenarios. Also, war fighter participation will grow. We
    plan to execute four flight tests using the long-range interceptor
    under a variety of flight conditions and, for the first time, use
    tracking data from the sea-based X-band radar.
        In terms of our sea-based midcourse defense element, this past
    February, we successfully used a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser to engage a
    short-range target ballistic missile. This test marked the first use of
    an operationally configured Aegis SM-3 interceptor. In the last three
    Aegis ballistic missile defense intercept flight tests, we
    incrementally ratcheted up the degree of realism and reduced testing
    limitations to the point where we did not notify the operational ship's
    crew of the target launch time and they were forced to react to a
    dynamic situation. This year, we will conduct two more tests using
    Aegis as the primary engagement platform. In fiscal year 2006, Aegis
    ballistic missile defense will use upgraded software and an advanced
    version of the SM-3 interceptor to engage a variety of short- and
    medium-range targets, including targets with separating warheads. We
    also plan to work with Japan to test the engagement performance of the
    SM-3 nosecone developed in the United States/Japan Cooperative Research
    project.
        Four Missile Defense Integration Exercises involving warfighter
    personnel will test hardware and software in the integrated system
    configuration to demonstrate system interoperability. War games also
    are an integral part of concept of operations development and
    validation. Four integrated missile defense wargames in fiscal year
    2006 will collect data to support characterization, verification, and
    assessment of the ballistic missile defense system with respect to
    operator-in-the-loop planning and the exchange of information in the
    system required for successful development and system operation.
        In addition to having laid out a very ambitious test plan, we are
    working hand-in-hand with the warfighter community and the independent
    testing community. We have more than one hundred people from the test
    community embedded in our program activities, and they are active in
    all phases of test planning, execution, and post-test analysis. We meet
    with them at the senior level on a weekly basis, and they help us
    develop and approve our test plans. All data from testing is available
    to all parties through a Joint Analysis Team and are used to conduct
    independent assessments of the system.
        The Missile Defense Agency and Director, Operational Test &
    Evaluation have completed and jointly approved an Integrated Master
    Test Plan, effective through 2007. The plan includes tests that combine
    developmental and operational testing to reduce costs and increase
    testing efficiency. Within our range safety constraints, we are
    committed to increasing the operational aspects as I stated earlier.
    This accumulated knowledge helps inform the assessment of operational
    readiness.
    Building the Next Increment--Block 2006
        In building the Ballistic Missile Defense program of work within
    the top line budget reductions I mentioned earlier, we followed several
    guiding principles. To keep ahead of the rogue nation threats, we
    recognized the need to continue holding to our fielding commitments to
    the President for Blocks 2004 and 2006, including investment in the
    necessary logistics support. We also knew that we must prepare for
    asymmetric (e.g., the threat from off-shore launches) and emerging
    threat possibilities as well in our fielding and development plans.
        In executing our program we are following a strategy to retain
    alternative development paths until capability is proven--a knowledge-
    based funding approach. This is a key concept in how we are executing
    our development program. We have structured the program to make
    decisions as to what we will and will not fund based upon the proven
    success of each program element. 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.
        The funding request for fiscal year 2006 will develop and field the
    next increment of missile defense capability to improve protection of
    the United States from the Middle East, expand coverage to allies and
    friends, improve our capability against short-range threats, and
    increase the resistance of the integrated system to countermeasures. We
    are beginning to lay in more mobile, flexible interceptors and
    associated sensors to meet threats posed from unanticipated launch
    locations, including threats launched off our coasts.
        For midcourse capability against the long-range threat, the Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element budget request is about $2.3
    billion for fiscal year 2006 to cover continued development, ground and
    flight testing, fielding and support. This request includes up to ten
    additional ground-based interceptors, their silos and associated
    support equipment and facilities as well as the long-lead items for the
    next increment. It also continues the upgrade of the Thule radar
    station in Greenland.
        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 element. 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 should have taken delivery of up to 28
    SM-3 interceptors for use on three Aegis cruisers and eight Aegis
    destroyers. This engagement capability will improve our ability to
    defend our deployed troops and our friends and allies. Six additional
    destroyers, for a total of 17 Aegis ships, will be capable of
    performing the surveillance and track mission.
        THAAD flight testing begins this year with controlled flight tests
    as well as radar and seeker characterization tests and will continue
    into fiscal year 2006, when we will conduct the first high endo-
    atmospheric intercept test. We are working toward fielding the first
    THAAD 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 suite in different phases of flight. In 2007, we will deploy a
    second forward-based X-band radar. We are working towards a 2007 launch
    of two Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) test bed
    satellites. These test bed satellites will demonstrate closing the fire
    control loop and the value of STSS tracking data. We are requesting
    approximately $521 million in fiscal year 2006 to execute this STSS and
    BMDS Radar work.
        All of these system elements must be built on 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 Commands. This foundation allows us to mix
    and match sensors, weapons and command centers to dramatically expand
    our detection and engagement capabilities over that achieved by the
    system's elements operating individually. In fact, without this
    foundation we cannot execute our basic mission. That is why the
    Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications program is so
    vital to the success of our integrated capability.
        Building a single integrated system of layered defenses has forced
    us to transition our thinking to become more system-centric. We
    established the Missile Defense National Team to solve the demanding
    technical problems involved in this unprecedented undertaking. No
    single contractor or government office has all the expertise needed to
    design and engineer an integrated and properly configured BMD system.
    The National Team brings together the best, most experienced people
    from the military and civilian government work forces, industry, and
    the federal laboratories to work aggressively and collaboratively on
    one of the nation's top priorities. However, integrating the existing
    elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System proved to be very
    challenging. Today, we have streamlined the team's activities and
    realigned their priorities to focus on providing the detailed systems
    engineering needed for a truly integrated capability. The team has now
    gained traction and is leading the way to building the system this
    nation will need for the future.
    Moving Toward the Future--Block 2008 and Beyond
        There is no silver bullet in missile defense, and strategic
    uncertainty could surprise us tomorrow with a more capable adversary.
    So it is important to continue our aggressive parallel paths approach
    as we build this integrated, multilayered defensive system. There are
    several important development efforts funded in this budget.
        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 $680 million for these
    activities in fiscal year 2006.
        In fiscal year 2006 we are beginning the integration of the high-
    power laser component of the Airborne Laser (ABL) into the first ABL
    weapon system test bed and will initiate ground-testing. Following that
    we will integrate the high-power laser into the aircraft and conduct a
    campaign of flight tests, including lethal shoot-down of a series of
    targets. We still have many technical challenges with the Airborne
    Laser, but with the recent achievements of first light and first flight
    of the aircraft with its beam control/fire control system, I am pleased
    with where we are today. We have proven again that we can generate the
    power and photons necessary to have an effective directed energy
    capability. An operational Airborne Laser could provide a valuable
    boost phase defense capability against missiles of all ranges. The
    revolutionary potential of this technology is so significant, that it
    is worth both the investment and our patience.
        We undertook the Kinetic Energy Interceptor 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. We will not know
    for two or three years, however, whether either of these programs will
    be technically viable. With the recent successes we have had with ABL,
    we are now able to fine-tune our boost-phase development work to better
    align it with our longer-term missile defense strategy of building a
    layered defense capability that has greater flexibility and mobility.
        We have established the Airborne Laser as the primary boost phase
    defense element. We are reducing our fiscal year 2006 funding request
    for the KEI effort and have restructured that activity, building in a
    one-year delay, in order to focus near-term efforts on demonstrating
    key capabilities and reduce development risks. We restructured the
    Kinetic Energy Interceptor activity as risk mitigation for the Airborne
    Laser and focused it on development of a land-based mobile, 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 replacement for our midcourse or even
    terminal interceptors. Decisions on sea-based capability and
    international participation in this effort have been deferred until the
    basic KEI technologies have been demonstrated. The restructured Kinetic
    Energy Interceptor activity will emphasize critical technology
    demonstrations and development of a mobile, flexible, land-based ascent
    and midcourse engagement capability around 2011, with a potential sea-
    based capability by 2013. A successful KEI mobile missile defense
    capability also could improve protection of our allies and friends.
        We are requesting $82 million in fiscal year 2006 to continue
    development of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV). MKV is a generational
    upgrade to ground-based midcourse interceptors to increase their
    effectiveness in the presence of countermeasures. We look forward to
    the first intercept attempt using MKV sometime in 2008.
        Our flexible management structure allows us to adjust development
    activities based on demonstrated test results, improve decision cycle
    times, and make the most prudent use of the taxpayer's money. Using a
    knowledge-based funding approach in our decision making, we will
    conduct periodic continuation reviews of major development activities
    against cost, schedule, and performance expectations. We have
    flexibility in our funding to support key knowledge-based decision
    paths, which means that we can reward successful demonstrations with
    reinvestment and redirect funds away from efforts that have not met our
    expectations. We have assigned a series of milestones to each of the
    major program activities. The milestones will provide one measure for
    decision-making and help determine whether a program stays on its
    course or is accelerated, slowed, or terminated. This approach gives us
    options within our trade space and helps us determine where we should
    place our resources, based on demonstrated progress. The alternative is
    to terminate important development activities without sufficient
    technical data to make smart decisions. We believe that this approach
    also acts as a disincentive to our contractors and program offices to
    over-promise on what they can deliver.
    International Participation
        Interest in missile defense among foreign governments and industry
    has continued to rise. We have been working closely with a number of
    allies to forge international partnerships that will make missile
    defense a key element of our security relationships around the world.
        The Government of Japan is proceeding with the acquisition of a
    multilayered BMD system, basing its initial capability on upgrades of
    its Aegis destroyers and acquisition of the Aegis SM-3 missile. We have
    worked closely with Japan since 1999 to design and develop advanced
    components for the SM-3 missile. This project will culminate in flight
    tests in 2005 and 2006. In addition, Japan and other allied nations are
    upgrading their Patriot fire units with PAC-3 missiles and improved
    ground support equipment. This past December we signed a BMD framework
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Japan to expand our cooperative
    missile defense activities.
        We have signed three agreements over the past two years with the
    United Kingdom, a BMD framework MOU and two annexes. In addition to the
    Fylingdales radar development and integration activities this year, we
    also agreed to continue cooperation in technical areas of mutual
    interest.
        This past summer we signed a BMD framework MOU with our Australian
    partners. This agreement will expand cooperative development work on
    sensors and build on our long-standing defense relationship with
    Australia. We also are negotiating a Research, Development, Test and
    Evaluation annex to the MOU 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 have worked through negotiations with Denmark and the Greenland
    Home Rule Government to upgrade the radar at Thule, which will play an
    important role in the system by giving us an early track on hostile
    missiles. We also have been in sensor discussions with several allies
    located in or near regions where the threat of ballistic missile use is
    high.
        Our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners have
    initiated a feasibility study for protection of NATO territory and
    population against ballistic missile attacks, which builds upon ongoing
    work to define and develop a NATO capability for protection of deployed
    forces.
        We are continuing work with Israel to implement the Arrow System
    Improvement Program and enhance its missile defense capability to
    defeat the longer-range ballistic missile threats emerging in the
    Middle East. We also have established a capability in the United States
    to co-produce 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 are intent on continuing U.S.-Russian collaboration and are now
    working on the development of software that will be used to support the
    ongoing U.S.-Russian Theater Missile Defense exercise program. A
    proposal for target missiles and radar cooperation is being discussed
    within the U.S.-Russian Federation Missile Defense Working Group.
        We have other international interoperability and technical
    cooperation projects underway as well 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. As we work through the
    challenges in the coming months, we will conduct several important
    tests and assessments of the system's progress. We will continue our
    close collaboration with the independent testers and the warfighters to
    ensure that the capabilities we field are effective, reliable, and
    militarily useful. 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.
        I believe we are on the right track to deliver multilayered,
    integrated capabilities to counter current and emerging ballistic
    missile threats. For the first time in its history, the United States
    today has a limited capability to defend our people against long-range
    ballistic missile attack. I believe that future generations will find
    these years to be the turning point in our effort to field an
    unprecedented and decisive military capability, one that closes off a
    major avenue of threat to our country.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        General Cartwright, the defense budget is coming down, and
    I remember the time I made and I think Senator Inouye made the
    trip up there too. We made several trips to Alaska to accompany
    those who were making the scientific assessment of where these
    ground-based interceptors should be located. It may appear to
    some people that that decision was made because of my
    chairmanship. I do not think so. I was with the scientists when
    they said this is the place. As a matter of fact, they went to
    a place I would not have gone. It was at Fort Greely, which had
    already been closed. That community had been through a trauma
    of one base closure. It did not want to see a buildup and then
    a let down again. But I do believe that the decision has been
    made and we agreed with it.

                              NEAR-TERM PRIORITIES

        I think we now find ourselves in the position, however,
    with the budget coming down. I have to ask, are we clearly
    focused on near-term priorities? It seems to me as you would
    want to balance the budget under these circumstances, that we
    probably should be looking more to the near-term deployment
    priorities. General Obering, I would assume that would be the
    Navy's Aegis system and the ground-based midcourse system.
    Would you comment on that first, General Cartwright, and then
    General Obering. Should we try to maintain that balance, let
    all of these programs go forward, but with emphasis on the
    near-term priorities?
        General Cartwright. Senator, I think you categorized it
    correctly in that the lay down of the system was done based on
    the science involved in intercepting the logical threat zones
    coming toward the United States, but also with a mind toward
    the future of a global system and putting it in the right place
    to make sure that we could advantage ourselves for the entire
    United States and to the extent of the ground-based system,
    that we could protect our deployed forces and allies, that it
    was in its best position. We have evolved it that way, setting
    priorities to cover the largest area as quickly as possible.
        In the balance between the fixed system that defends the
    United States in principal and the system that we have started
    to field and work on that deals with our deployed forces, those
    mobile capabilities like Aegis, we have adjusted the balance.
    We have looked at that balance and we are certainly trying to
    make sure that our investment pattern addresses both the
    defense of the United States and the defense of our forward-
    deployed forces in a way that makes sense and can match the
    technologies available to build those systems.

                        NEAR-TERM PRIORITIES--TECHNOLOGY

        I will turn it over to General Obering to talk to the
    technology side of it.
        General Obering. Yes, sir. Senator, you are correct. I was
    not there at the time, but I do know that there were many
    factors that went into the decision to locate the interceptors
    at Fort Greely, not the least of which was soil composition and
    the makeup there and how it supported the silo construction,
    and also its ability to reach and to protect the United States
    from that type of great circle approach.
        Your question about priorities. Sir, we are clearly focused
    on continuing to field the ground-based midcourse interceptors,
    and we have that in our budget to continue to do that and to
    continue to get those missiles into the ground there. We are
    also focused on, as you said, the Aegis with its mobile
    capability, not against an ICBM but against the shorter-range
    missiles, and its flexibility that it brings in the mobility.
        While we are continuing to focus on that, we cannot give up
    the future, though. We have to continue that balance between
    near term and the longer term because building those defenses
    do take time and building these capabilities. So a lot of the
    decisions that we are making today will have consequences 5, 6,
    10 years out that we have to pay attention to because the
    evolving threat environment, as we proceed in the future, and
    the uncertainty of that forced us to have to be able to do
    that. So we are trying desperately to reach that balance
    between the near-term priorities and the longer-term priorities
    that are involved in our development program.
        Senator Stevens. General Cartwright, your comment about the
    defense and offense I think is the most lucid explanation of
    why we have to have a ground-based system in terms of being
    able to do our utmost to catch that first one and to teach the
    person that launched it a very serious lesson. That is
    something that I think misses most people.
        We in Alaska have looked at this as being there to deal
    with places like North Korea where they are so unpredictable
    that no one knows what they will do. They really do not have
    the massive capability of a Soviet Union, but they have got the
    capability, we believe, to launch a missile or missiles at us
    with warheads that would be very dangerous to our survival.

          BALANCED FUNDING--AEGIS, LASER, GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSE (GMD)

        Now, are you satisfied with the way this funding is set
    forth in this budget in terms of balance? I am trying to get
    back again to the balance between the Aegis system, the laser
    system, and the ground-based system. Has this been worked out
    to your satisfaction?
        General Cartwright. Senator, I think it has. The good news
    here is that in the shakedown, we have been given a voice in
    that discussion so that the warfighter is at the table and has
    an opportunity to make a contribution about that balance.
    Clearly that balance is very important to us. I believe that we
    are on the right path, that we are testing to the right
    criteria to keep it operationally realistic, allowing the
    testing to influence our decisions on what we buy and at what
    pace, and keeping the warfighter in mind, and working the
    balance between all of those three is critical. Like I say, the
    good news here is for STRATCOM we are at the table, we are a
    part of that dialogue, we are allowed to make input, and now we
    are getting to a point where that input has got the judgment of
    people sitting at the console working the system on a day-to-
    day basis and making contribution.

                              INFRASTRUCTURE CUTS

        Senator Stevens. Well, General Obering, I am informed that
    in the preparation of this program, there were $80 million from
    the GMD program allocated to another portion of the system.
    Where did that go?
        General Obering. Sir, if you are referring to part of our
    infrastructure cuts, potentially is what you may be referring
    to. If I could for a second, I could put this in context.
        As you heard in my opening remarks, we had a $1 billion
    reduction overall in our program between 2005 and 2006. Even
    given that, the ground-based midcourse defense is $300 million
    more in 2006 than in the President's budget 2005 request for
    2006 in the balance, and it is almost $3 billion across the
    future years defense program (FYDP) for the ground-based
    midcourse defense than it was in the 2005 President's budget.
        Part of that budget reduction, though, was to try to get
    more efficient. General Kadish, my predecessor, did a great job
    in laying the technical foundation for the integration of these
    programs so that we can begin to integrate Aegis and the
    ground-based midcourse and terminal high altitude area defense
    (THAAD) and others. What we have not addressed, though, was the
    programmatic integration across the board such that we could
    begin to combine some of our overhead, if you want to call it
    that, our infrastructure, and getting more efficient in how we
    manage the programs. We had set a target of about $300 million
    a year, beginning in 2006, to try to reduce our overhead by
    those amounts.
        The ground-based midcourse portion of that is around $60
    million to $80 million, in that region. Again, that is a better
    than fair share in terms of its portion of our budget overall.
    But we have taken that across the board, and we certainly hit
    much of our headquarters staff the hardest in this regard.

                        GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSE SHORTFALL

        Senator Stevens. I am indebted to Ms. Ashworth for her
    research into this. But she tells me that there was a $431
    million shortfall in the President's 2006 budget as far as the
    ground missile defense system. So with the cooperation of the
    chairman, we added $50 million to that supplemental that just
    passed to try and catch up on that. I am sure you are familiar
    with that. Is that shortfall still a realistic number?
        General Obering. Yes. I think if you are referring to the
    cost variance at the end of the current contract, yes, sir. It
    has actually been estimated between roughly that and as much as
    $600 million or more. That is the total cost variance at the
    completion of the contract which is at the end of 2007, which
    represents less than a 5 percent variance in the overall, which
    is about a $12 billion contract value. We have paid down about
    $400 million of that, and so your help there has been
    tremendous in that regard.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, do you have a time problem?
        Senator Cochran. No.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.

                         AEGIS PROGRAM AND FUNDING CUT

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up. The Aegis
    ballistic missile defense program has been very successful,
    five out of six intercepts, but as a result of the fiscal year
    2006 reduction of $1 billion, about $95 million will be cut out
    of this test program and it might have an impact upon whether
    we have the signal processor, which I have been advised that it
    would be at least a year. Why are we setting aside such a
    successful program where the outcome is almost predictable and
    spending it on other riskier programs?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. First of all, the program has
    been very successful in the testing that we have done to date.
    Now, one of the things we have not done yet is fly against a
    separating target, and that is something that we do need to do
    because that represents the lion's share of the threats that we
    may be facing around the world.
        The reason that we have not done that is because, if you
    recall, the one failure that we did have in the test program
    had to do with the divert attitude control system malfunction
    as we got into the higher pulses that we would need for a
    separating warhead. We have not completely fixed that yet in
    the program. We are still going through the ground testing for
    a new design to validate that we do have a fix. We think we
    have identified the root cause of that and we are taking steps
    to address that, but that is why we do not have a more robust
    profile either in the testing or in our production profile
    because we have not jumped all those technical hurdles yet, but
    we are in the process of doing that.
        The reductions that were taken in Aegis--the program
    director, Admiral Paige, saw some ways that she could combine
    some of the testing that we are doing with our Japan
    cooperative program, also combine some of our software
    deliveries into more efficient drops, and we were able to
    achieve those savings as part of that overall reduction.
        But it is a very successful program. We still have some
    things that we need to address there, though, before we can go
    full bore in that program.

                             AEGIS SIGNAL PROCESSOR

        Senator Inouye. Would it improve the program if you got
    your signal processor?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, it would. It would allow us,
    again, to be able to address more complex threats, and it is
    very definitely a benefit to the Aegis program. There are other
    steps we can take by combining other sensors to achieve the
    same effect, but it certainly helps the Aegis program
    tremendously.
        Senator Inouye. Then it would have some merit for the
    committee to look into that matter.
        General Obering. Sir, we would always enjoy your support.
    Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I would appreciate it if you could give us
    an unclassified version of a memo on the signal processor and
    the capabilities of it and how it would improve your Aegis
    program.
        General Obering. Yes, sir.

                      SPACE-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE TEST BED

        Senator Inouye. The other question I have is on the space-
    based missile defense test bed beginning in 2008. Now, we have
    been told that this has a potentially large price tag,
    technological challenges, and tons of people objecting to it. I
    suppose we are going to spend a lot of money and it might
    require setting aside some of the less riskier programs to
    carry out the space program. Why move forward on another
    controversial, costly, and technologically riskier program when
    your other programs have not reached fruition yet?
        General Obering. Well, sir, what you are seeing reflected
    in our program is a very small effort, actually an
    experimentation program, a test bed that we start, relatively
    speaking, overall very small in the budget. The reason for that
    is, as I mentioned earlier, we are trying to deal with the
    world as it may exist in 10 years. In order to be able to
    address that, we believe that there are some prudent
    experimentation steps that we should take because, to be very
    honest with you, sir, in spite of what a lot of people will
    articulate, I am not at all certain that we have tackled all
    the technical issues associated with space-basing of
    interceptors. There are some questions that I think we need to
    answer in terms of the on-orbit storage, so to speak, of
    interceptors. There is a number of issues with respect to
    command and control, with being able to sense the rising
    targets and being able to distinguish those. There are a lot of
    technical challenges that we need to address. I think that
    while it is important to have the debate on the philosophical
    advantage and strategy of having space-based interceptors, it
    would be prudent to lay in a technical experimentation program
    to see if we could even do that.

                     BATTLE MANAGEMENT COMMAND AND CONTROL

        Senator Inouye. General Cartwright, we have been advised
    that at each stage of the missile defense mission, you will
    have combatant commanders in charge of identification, track,
    discrimination, and defending against incoming missiles. How
    are you going to coordinate all of this, especially when the
    time window is not that big?
        General Cartwright. That is one of the key challenges in
    the system when you try to field a global system for which the
    decision windows to decide whether or not you have a threat
    coming at the United States or at our forces. Where did that
    threat come from, where is it going to, what should I use or
    what should the system use to engage it are all decisions that
    have to be made in a very timely fashion and really brings to
    the forefront the technical challenge of a global system.
        The way we have set it up today is that Strategic Command
    provides to the regional commanders the capability. So for
    Northern Command and Pacific Command right now, we are
    providing them with all of the command and control capabilities
    necessary to analyze the threat when it is detected, align the
    sensors so that they can determine where that threat is going,
    characterize that threat, and then align the weapons and use
    the weapons if appropriate. In the case of Pacific Command,
    that capability resides in Hawaii at the commander's
    headquarters there. In the case of Northern Command, that
    capability resides in Colorado Springs with the headquarters
    there. We have built that system. This year sees the system
    being installed in Hawaii. In the first year, in 2004, we had
    the system installed at Northern Command and at STRATCOM with
    situation awareness systems deployed here in Washington to the
    Joint Staff and to the National Command Authority.
        That is what we are working through in the shakedown
    period, understanding the concept of operations and how we will
    deal with a threat that we are watching nine time zones away
    and trying to manage both the sensors, the command and control,
    and the weapons. What we have seen to date is that it is in
    fact working, but we cross several lines of authority between,
    say, Pacific Command and Northern Command and STRATCOM, and in
    the time zones and where the sensors are located versus where
    the weapons are located, et cetera. It is a complex system.
    Like I said, in the shakedown, we have gotten to a point now
    where the soldiers are getting good confidence that the system,
    in fact, can perform, that the commanders can get sufficient
    information to make credible decisions about threats that may
    be presented in the system.

                  EXECUTIVE DECISIONMAKING COMMAND AND CONTROL

        Senator Inouye. In this decisionmaking process, I presume
    the President and the Secretary of Defense are involved?
        General Cartwright. Yes, sir. But as you can imagine, this
    is a stressing scenario because the timelines associated with
    those decisions for the stressing threats, which really are the
    threats to Alaska and Hawaii, the timelines are much shorter
    than if you are traveling a greater distance, say, to the
    continental United States.
        Senator Inouye. What would be the decision window for
    launching an interceptor at an incoming ballistic missile, if
    you can give it to us in open session? What is the time?
        General Cartwright. I think we can do this in open session.
    The system is designed so that we can have a characterization
    of the threat in the first 3 to 4 minutes and that we have a
    decision window, depending on where the threat missile is
    moving, probably in the next 3 to 5 minutes in the short
    scenarios like Hawaii and Alaska and expands out as you go
    further. But you are eating up decision time. And so we are
    working through with the Secretary, with General Obering a set
    of tabletop exercises to walk us through and understand where
    the regret factors are, if you do not make a decision on time,
    when does that happen, when are the key windows and the
    vulnerabilities in the decision window that would allow us to
    commit a weapon against a threat in a timely fashion and have a
    secondary opportunity if at all possible.
        As we work those through, then we are also working through
    is it phone calls that we make, do we use the command and
    control system and the displays to inform that National Command
    Authority, how are we going to bring them together? As you can
    imagine, getting the President, the Secretary, the regional
    combatant commander into a conversation and a conference in a
    3-to 4-minute timeframe is going to be challenging. So what are
    the rules that we lay down? That is what the shakedown has been
    about. We are working very hard with the Secretary to lay down
    those rules and understand the risks associated with those very
    quick and timely decisions that are going to have to be made,
    particularly for Alaska and Hawaii when we deal with the North
    Korean threat.
        Senator Inouye. In the Alaska and Hawaii situation, your
    decision window for life and death decisions would be less than
    7 minutes?
        General Cartwright. It would be right in that area, right
    about 7 minutes.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                      GROUND-BASED SYSTEM TESTING PROGRAM

        The testing program for the ground-based system has had
    some recent difficulties after a series of successful
    intercepts have proven the capabilities are there in the
    system. What are your plans for future tests? Do you have the
    resources in this budget request that will enable you to carry
    those out?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. I will take that. The aborts
    that we had in our last two tests were caused--in the December
    timeframe, we had a software timing issue. As we got in and
    discovered the root cause, we determined that, first of all, it
    was a rare occurrence, and we have actually flown with that
    condition three times before with the booster. And it was
    correctable with a fix to one line of software code and one
    parameter in that software code.
        The failure that we had to launch in February was due to a
    ground support arm that failed to retract. We now know what the
    root cause of that was. We actually had done some work in the
    bottom of the silo to modify that because that silo was
    configured for a ``BV'' configuration booster, an earlier
    configuration that is no longer in the program, and the
    workmanship allowed some leakage and some moisture to gather in
    the bottom of the silo which caused corrosion around the shims
    in that arm on the hinge and basically bound up the hinge to be
    able to move away. And then we had the wrong size crush block.
    It kind of dampens the retraction of the arm so it does not
    bounce into the interceptor when it is launching. That was the
    wrong size and the wrong stiffness. So we had workmanship
    issues, we had quality control issues that we had to go back
    and address.

                      INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM AND TESTING

        I got very angry about that because those are basic
    blocking and tackling that you have to do as part of any
    development program. That is why I chartered the independent
    review team that gave me their findings several weeks ago, and
    this mission readiness task force that is taking those
    recommendations along with their Aegis expertise from that
    program and putting that into a road back, a way ahead to a
    successful test program.
        Some of the recommendations coming out of the independent
    team is that we need to do more ground qualification testing as
    part of our overall flight test program. We need to have a more
    rigorous flight certification, kind of a concurrent but
    independent assessment of our readiness to fly. And we are
    factoring that all into our test program.
        The basic content of our tests will not change in terms of
    what we are planning to do over the next 2 years in terms of
    getting more realistic testing. We are going to launch targets
    out of Kodiak, Alaska like we did the last two tests, very
    successfully, by the way. Tremendous help and team support up
    there. It actually demonstrated that we could take the target
    information and inject that into our operational fire control
    system and get the interceptor to accept that, the flight
    computer and be ready to launch.
        But we are going to do that in the next several years. We
    are going to take an operationally configured interceptor and
    fly it out of Vandenberg, which is an operational site. We are
    going to fly it across the face of the Beale radar, which is an
    operational radar with operational crews. So we are going to
    get more and more realism in our test profile.
        Certainly the resources that we have--we believe that what
    we have programmed will allow us to do that, but that still
    depends somewhat on the recommendations that I will be getting
    from this mission readiness task force in the next several
    weeks.
        General Cartwright. Could I just chime in just for one
    second?
        Senator Cochran. Sure.
        General Cartwright. Particularly on this last part that we
    talked about here of actually using the interceptors, launching
    them from operational sites, using operational crews, using
    operational sensors. These are the things that we on the
    STRATCOM side of the equation really wanted to see brought into
    the test program, and in 2005 and forward, General Obering has
    made a great effort to be able to bring that in because we
    think that is important. It gives the soldier confidence that
    the system will work. It gives us confidence that the netting
    together of the system works. To me that is critical on the
    operational side. So I just want to kind of get that in and
    chime in on that, the support for that. To me that is very
    important.

                      OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL READINESS

        Senator Cochran. Is the testing program far enough down the
    track now for you to be willing to use the interceptors that
    are in the ground in case of a crisis in trying to defeat a
    missile attack against the United States?
        General Obering. Sir, I will speak technically to that and
    General Cartwright can speak from an operational perspective. I
    believe the answer to that is yes. I believe that we have
    enough confidence that we will have a pretty good chance of
    that succeeding.
        Now, I would like to fly the kill vehicle in its
    operational configuration. We have not done that. We flew
    prototypes of the kill vehicle in our successful intercepts in
    the past. About 67 percent the same hardware, 60 percent the
    same software, as we flew in our previous test, but we did a
    redesign for manufacturability and for more robustness in that
    kill vehicle. We have not flown that configuration, which I
    would like to do, and that is part of our coming test program
    to get into the air and get the data that we need from that
    testing to give you a full confidence answer.
        General Cartwright. And I would chime in that from an
    operational standpoint for the system that we have today, one,
    we are confident that the crews are trained and can use the
    system and that the command and control system will, in fact,
    work for us; two, that the sensors and the weapons are netted
    in such a fashion that they will, in fact, provide us a great
    opportunity to intercept any kind of incoming threat. As it
    gets more redundancy, the system becomes more resilient, we
    understand better how to employ it, we will get better, but in
    an emergency, we are in fact in a position. We are confident
    that we can operate the system and employ it.

                           INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Senator Cochran. One of the things that occurs to me is
    that we are going to be depending on other nations to cooperate
    and support our efforts to have a successful, comprehensive,
    layered missile defense capability, radar sites in the United
    Kingdom, and elsewhere. Even cooperation in the development of
    the Arrow program is also contributing to our own improved
    knowledge and expertise in this area.
        Are you pleased with the cooperation, generally speaking,
    internationally that we are receiving, or do we have problems
    that need to be addressed in diplomatic ways or any ways that
    we can provide funding in this budget cycle that would be
    helpful to you?
        General Obering. Sir, I will take the programmatic aspects
    of that. As I mentioned, we have signed agreements with Japan,
    with the United Kingdom, and with Australia now on broad
    memorandums of understanding to cover joint cooperative
    research and development, as well as procurement and
    cooperation.
        To give you an example of the level of cooperation and
    interest, we co-host a conference every year, a multinational
    conference. Last year it was in Germany. We had over 850
    delegates from more than 20 countries attend that conference.
    We were able to conduct bilateral discussions with many of the
    nations there, looking at what they are interested in and what
    they bring to the table. So I do see a rising tide of interest
    in missile defense. And I see concrete actions like the
    Japanese have taken and the investments that they have made in
    their budget for missile defense because they view the threat,
    I believe, similar to the way that we do, and the cooperation
    that we have received in the United Kingdom with the placement
    and the upgrade of the Flyingdales radar that is placed in that
    nation. So I think it is a very bright outlook, sir.

                             AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more
    question I will ask and then others, if it is okay, I will just
    submit for the record.
        The airborne laser program is one that has potential for
    use as part of a comprehensive and layered program of missile
    defense. What is your impression so far? Do you have enough
    knowledge from tests that have been undertaken to lead you to a
    conclusion about the utility and the potential success of an
    airborne laser (ABL) program?
        General Obering. Well, sir, we achieved two major
    milestones in that program over this last year. The first light
    in the laser was extremely significant because we had a lot of
    critics in the past believe that that could never be done,
    which is the simultaneous ignition of those laser modules to
    get the power that we need to make this a very viable weapons
    system. We achieved that. We were able to achieve first flight
    of the heavily modified, in fact, the most heavily modified 747
    in history.
        We are continuing with the lasing test today as we speak,
    and we are continuing with the flight test where we begin to
    unstow the ball in the front of the aircraft. That should be
    coming in the next several weeks. So we are gaining confidence.
    We have tackled all of the major technical questions with
    respect to the operation of the system.
        But there is still a long way to go between that and saying
    that we would have a viable operational capability. That is
    where we are today. As we go beyond these first major steps,
    tear down the laser, reassemble it on the aircraft, and then
    fly the joint weapons system, as I said, in the 2007-2008
    timeframe, that is when we will have the real confidence to
    move forward. We are setting up a series of decision milestones
    then that we can provide to the Department, to the
    administration based on knowledge-based results from those
    tests.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to have you
    here.

                        OPERATOR EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

        Pardon my cold here a little bit, General.
        I had a briefing at one place we will not talk about, but
    sitting was this young operator. He demonstrated how he would
    shift from one incoming missile to another one. I said, you
    know, that is pretty fast. He says, it is nothing like
    Nintendo, Senator. I want to ask a little bit about the
    educational requirements now. Are you running into problems
    with regard to educational requirements for the people who will
    man the system?
        General Cartwright. I can ask General Dodgen back here who
    has the lead in the training side of this, but as I have, like
    you, gone out and sat and talked with these young soldiers as
    they work the consoles, it is not like Nintendo, but their
    minds tend to pick up the displays and all of the information
    and process it in ways that leaves me in awe, to tell you the
    truth. They are very good at it. They grew up understanding how
    to look at a screen and take in large amounts of information
    and process it and consistently come out with the right
    answers.
        When we started into the training program, as you always
    do, whether it is an aircraft or a radar site, what do you
    display that cognitively will get the right information when
    you go into sensor overload in your brain, when people have a
    sense of urgency, when people are yelling in the back of the
    room? What gets into your head and do you make the right
    decisions? Part of our shakedown has been taking each operator
    up to a point of stress where they are at overload and then
    seeing what decisions do they make, what information do they
    actually use in those times of stress, and is it presented to
    them in a way that they will retain it. We are pretty confident
    that we have got the displays about right and the cognitive
    reaction to those displays, that they make the right decisions
    time and time again. We have multiple people on those consoles
    to ensure that we are making those decisions right.
        But my sense is we have, in fact, got a good cadre of
    people, that the training regimen is replicatable and can be
    exported to a broader group of people. As you know, we are
    using Guard and Reserve people to do this, soldiers, and they
    are doing a great job with it. My sense is we do have the right
    people, the right skills, and that they can retain them and we
    can teach them on a sustaining basis.
        Senator Stevens. Going on from that, Senator Inouye and I
    were in the Persian Gulf War the night a young man on Joint
    Surveillance and Target Attack Radar Systems (J-STARS), which
    was deployed during the test phase, as a matter of fact,
    noticed that the headlights were going the wrong way. They were
    going north not south. It was his immediate perception of that
    that changed the course of that war.

                          AIRBORNE LASER APPLICATIONS

        This is now getting to the point where this airborne laser
    system comes into play here too. Do you believe that that has
    applications beyond missile defense?
        General Cartwright. Sir, as we understand both what the art
    of the possible would be in an energy-based system that moves
    at the speed of light and the range at which we could apply it,
    we are starting to look at the feasibility of other
    applications for that kind of technology, whether it be
    airborne, ground-based, mobile. We are looking at a wide
    variety of opportunities that could be presented by having that
    kind of technology and starting to explore them. But we are
    still very early in the R&D phase. So these are feasibility
    studies. These are things that we are using, say, our
    universities, our military universities, to start to think
    about, how could you use this kind of a weapon in more than
    just the missile defense role.
        Senator Stevens. My last question. Many people have said to
    me the real problem here is how to hit a bullet with a bullet
    from 1,000 miles away. Does the airborne laser change that
    equation?
        General Cartwright. My sense is it gives you more decision
    time because the weapon actually moves at the speed of light.
    So the first chance to strike the bullet, so to speak, to the
    last chance, you have more opportunity, more decision time,
    more chance for a second shot if the first one did not make it.
    We are trying to understand how precise do we have to be with
    this type of weapon. How much makes a difference? Is it
    millimeters? Is it bigger than that? We do not have those
    answers yet. But at the end of the day, the hope is that, one,
    you have more opportunities, larger decision time, more
    opportunities to make the right decision, and if you miss, for
    whatever reason, a malfunction or an aiming problem or
    something else, the opportunity to have subsequent shots is
    increased.
        Senator Stevens. Is it possible to separate that beam as it
    goes out so there is more than one opportunity to strike the
    incoming missile?
        General Obering. Sir, the aircraft has the ability to hit
    more than one missile. I cannot go into much more detail than
    that, but it does have the ability to do so.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you are in a very exciting area. As
    an old silo jockey, I envy you. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.

                  TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE TESTING

        Senator Inouye. Testing for THAAD has been continually
    slipping. Can you tell us in this hearing what the causes are
    and what your new schedule is going to be?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, I can. As you may recall, in
    August 2003, there was series of explosions at a motor supplier
    in California, in San Jose. It was the Chemical Systems
    Division of Pratt and Whitney. Now, unfortunately, that
    supplier handled all of THAAD's motors, and in the recovery
    from that, requalifying another supplier and moving out of that
    facility had an impact on the program and began to delay its
    return to flight test.
        Also, the THAAD program, as I think you may be aware of,
    Senator, was plagued with quality control problems in its past
    in the 1999-2000 timeframe and the redesign that it went
    through, which I think is going to be very successful, and the
    manufacturability improvements that have been made have taken
    time. It is the reason it has not been back in flight.
        It is now finished with almost all of its ground
    qualification testing. The flight test missile is in assembly
    as we speak in Troy, Alabama and will be shipped out for flight
    testing. We anticipate that to be by the end of June to return
    to flight, and then we look forward to an intercept attempt,
    after a series of guided flights. By the end of this calendar
    is what our plan is.
        I believe that what I have seen--in fact, to be very frank
    with you, after I saw the quality control problems that we
    experienced on the ground-based midcourse system, I sent an
    audit team out to the contractor facilities for that program. I
    also sent an audit team to take a look at the THAAD program
    before flight to see if we had any problems, and I got a pretty
    glowing report coming back from there. So I am confident that
    we will be able to meet our objectives with that program, but
    as you said, the primary cause of that slippage was the
    recovery from that unfortunate explosion.
        Senator Inouye. So you think you are on track now.
        General Obering. I think so, yes, sir.

          MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY $1 BILLION CUT AND PROGRAMS AFFECTED

        Senator Inouye. Now, the Missile Defense Agency has been
    told to take out $1 billion. What programs do you believe will
    be impacted the most, if you can tell us?
        General Obering. Sir, we tried to, as I said, in the past
    balance this across our portfolio in terms of how much risk we
    were taking in the development programs and how much we were
    able to meet our fielding and our support commitments that we
    have made. The kinetic energy interceptor (KEI) program is
    where we have taken the largest amount of risk with this. That
    was in part due to two reasons.
        One is because the inception of that program was as an
    alternative to the airborne laser, a risk reduction program for
    the airborne laser. That was at the recommendation of the
    Defense Science Board in 2002. We had laid in a fairly robust
    acquisition program for the kinetic energy interceptor. That
    included land-based and sea-based aspects to that. I felt that
    we were getting out in front of our headlights a little bit too
    much, so to speak, much like we had done on airborne laser. We
    did the same thing. We were spending money 2 years ago on
    airborne laser, worrying a lot about the operational support of
    that program before we had ever even generated first light out
    of the laser. We felt like that that had to be refocused, and
    that is what General Kadish and I did last year and we were
    successful in doing that.
        We did much the same thing on KEI. What is going to make
    this program work is a very high acceleration booster, much,
    much, much faster in acceleration than the ground-based
    interceptor that we have today or Aegis or any of the others.
    So they had to demonstrate to me the ability to do that before
    we make them a full-blown acquisition program, number one.
        Number two, if they are able to do that, it provides us
    some options for the Department on midcourse and even terminal
    phases because of that performance. It begins to expand our
    envelope, so to speak, that we can use. Even if we are
    backfilling missiles and silos in Fort Greely with this
    missile, it gives us that kind of capability.
        So that is where we took the lion's share of the money in
    terms of that cut. That is also why you see that we did not
    terminate anything because I felt that we needed to balance our
    portfolio out.
        Senator Inouye. In cutting out $1 billion, do you believe
    you had to cut out some real flesh, muscle?
        General Obering. Well, what I would say that we did, sir,
    is we just accepted more risk in certain areas. We tried to and
    we did adhere, for the most part, to our fielding commitments,
    which is really the muscle and the flesh that you are referring
    to.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I thank you very much. We will do our
    very best, sir.
        General Obering. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran, do you have any further questions?
        Senator Cochran. No.

                                OUT-YEAR FUNDING

        Senator Stevens. We thank you again. I really want you to
    know that I worry a little bit about the out-year funding with
    what is happening right now. I do hope that you will keep in
    touch with us as we go through this work on this subcommittee
    to see if we can find some way to alleviate some of that strain
    in the out-years by a proper allocation of the money now. I do
    not think we can get any more money. He has the problem now.
        I do think we should make certain that the money in the
    near term is directed toward really being able to get a robust
    system in the near term. I can tell you that when I am home,
    everyone reads the papers about what is happening in North
    Korea. It is a very solid worry for those of us, I think in
    Hawaii probably to a lesser extent, but the offshore States do
    worry about that potential they have already. We believe they
    have it already. I cannot get into too much of that here today.
    But we want to work with you in every way possible to assure
    the near-term completion of the test phase, if we can. So call
    on us if there is anything we can do.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We look forward to trying to have the subcommittee take a
    look at the ground-based laser again this year. We did that 3
    years ago and I think we ought to play catch-up.
        We do thank you, General Cartwright, General Obering.
        [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 James E. Cartwright
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                        GROUND-BASED MID-COURSE PROGRAM

        Question. What additional military capabilities would you like to
    see within the Ground-Based Mid-Course Program? Would you use these
    Ground Based Interceptors if a missile were launched at the United
    States? In your opinion, how many interceptors does the United States
    need?
        Answer. Today, we have a thin line Ground Based Mid-Course Defense
    System. Our focus for additional capabilities in the near-term is to
    increase the redundancy of the sensors and command and control
    components so we are not reliant on a single string.
        Although the system is still rudimentary, I am confident that our
    crews are well trained and that the network of sensors, weapons, and
    command and control is configured to optimize success. In an emergency,
    we could employ Ground Based Interceptors against a missile launched at
    the United States. The number of interceptors needed is an issue under
    constant study and will continue to evolve as the threats develop and
    ballistic missile technology continues to proliferate.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

           CONVENTIONAL CAPABILITIES ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

        Question. General Cartwright, it is my understanding that as part
    of the expanded responsibilities of Strategic Command, your
    organization is directly involved in discussions concerning Robust
    Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).
        As you know, the program was not funded for fiscal year 2005, but
    the budget for next year requests $8.5 million to continue the study. I
    am interested in your views about the conventional capability of RNEP.
        Would the RNEP sled-test data inform us also as to the safety and
    reliability of a conventional penetrator capability? Please discuss
    your views as to why this is important.
        Answer. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study was
    initiated to determine the technical feasibility of a guided, 5,000-
    pound class nuclear earth penetrator capable of surviving penetration
    into the hard surface geologies that lie above most strategic hard and
    deeply buried targets. Data from the RNEP sled test supports nuclear or
    conventional weapons.
        Modeling and simulation developed in the study predict the transfer
    of loads to internal hardware components. The sled test will provide
    critical empirical data to validate these models and simulations for
    both conventional as well as nuclear weapons.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

       JOINT FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT COMMAND FOR INTEGRATED MISSILE DEFENSE

        Question. General Cartwright, I understand that U.S. STRATCOM has
    been assigned new missions over the past few years. As a result of
    these new missions, one of which is missile defense, you are presently
    taking steps to stand up Joint Functional Component Commands (known as
    JFCCs) for each of the new missions. Since today's hearing is focused
    on missile defense, I would like to focus on the JFCC for Integrated
    Missile Defense. I certainly understand that as a Combatant Commander,
    a primary focus must be placed on enhancing and fielding systems such
    as Patriot and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. However, I am
    sure that you would agree that emphasis must be placed on developing
    the next generation of missile defense systems. Please share with the
    committee the process and agreements you have with the Missile Defense
    Agency regarding how technology development for future systems are
    prioritized and funded.
        Answer. It is important the Combatant Commanders have an input into
    the development of future capability. We have addressed this process
    from two aspects to ensure we are capable of effectively advocating for
    future needs. First, the Warfighter Involvement Process was developed
    in concert with the Geographic Combatant Commanders' staffs and Missile
    Defense Agency (MDA) to provide the forum and framework to integrate
    Ballistic Missile Defense System users into the capability development
    and acquisition processes at MDA. Second, my Joint Functional Component
    Command for Integrated Missile Defense has recently concluded an
    agreement with MDA that defines their respective roles and
    responsibilities for advocacy, of advanced concept and technology
    demonstrations. It is through close working relationships such as these
    that we will ensure science and technology programs are prioritized and
    funded to meet our needs in the 10 to 15-year timeframe. I am confident
    we can work effectively with MDA to successfully field the next
    generation of missile defense systems.
                                     ______

        Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering, III
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. The Administration is fielding the Navy's Aegis Missile
    Defense System and the Ground-Based Midcourse System. Do these remain
    your near-term deployment priorities? Does your budget reflect those
    priorities and your commitment for enhanced testing?
        Answer. Yes, our near-term priority continues to be fielding these
    elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). In 2004 we
    began fielding the initial elements of the Block 2004 BMDS. In 2005 we
    improved this capability by adding more Ground-Based Interceptors and
    the first Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) missiles. In fiscal year 2006 our
    objective is to complete the development, fielding and verification of
    Block 2004 and begin fielding the next increment of missile defense
    capability, Block 2006. This Block will add 10 Ground-Based
    Interceptors at Fort Greely as well as an Upgraded Early Warning Radar
    in Thule, Greenland and another Forward Based X-Band Radar. We also
    plan to deliver additional SM-3 missiles, and continue upgrading Aegis
    cruisers and destroyers.
        All of this work involves continued development and deployment of
    near-term BMDS assets and this priority is reflected in our fiscal year
    2006 budget request. Our budget includes about $400 million in fiscal
    year 2006 to complete the initial Block 2004 fielding and about $4.9
    billion for the development and fielding of Block 2006.
        Our commitment to enhanced testing is also a priority that is
    reflected in our fiscal year 2006 budget request. Resources for test
    and evaluation are included in our Test & Targets Program Element as
    well as the Program Elements for individual BMDS elements. Total
    funding for test and evaluation activities is about $2.78 billion in
    fiscal year 2006 or about 35 percent of our budget request.
        Let me note that the recent interceptor launch aborts in IFT-13C
    and IFT-14 in the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) program have
    reinforced my commitment to our testing program. I have chartered an
    Independent Review Team (IRT) to review our test processes, procedures
    and management and they have reported back to me with a series of
    specific recommendations. In addition, I have appointed Rear Admiral
    Kate Paige as Director for Mission Readiness. She is leading a Mission
    Readiness Task Force and has full authority to implement the
    corrections needed to ensure a successful flight test program.
        Question. It is very important that we do everything possible to
    get the most capability we can out of our missile defense systems, such
    as the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), that we have already invested in
    so heavily. What are your plans for spiral development of the GBI, and
    how much funding do you have in the fiscal year 2006 budget and
    throughout the out-years for upgrading the capabilities of the GBI? Is
    this sufficient?
        Answer. The Ground Based Interceptor spiral development strategy
    from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2011 capitalizes on
    concurrent efforts to field additional interceptors while incorporating
    performance upgrades, as well as reliability, maintainability and
    producibility improvements. As we deploy and operate the Limited
    Defensive Operations capability, these development upgrades ensure that
    system limitations in operational performance, availability, or
    sustainability will be addressed. Additionally, the development program
    will ensure the interoperability of the Ground Based Interceptor with
    the other evolving elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System and
    ensure that the technical capability of the Ground Based Interceptor
    will continue to improve and mature to meet the developing threat.
        Development upgrades to be tested and fielded in fiscal year 2006
    and fiscal year 2007 include Orbital and Lockheed Martin booster
    software builds; an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle processor upgrade;
    Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle software algorithm enhancements; booster-
    aided navigation using booster Global Positioning System to improve
    interceptor accuracy; sensor manufacturing improvements and sensor
    enhancement for longer acquisition range; and configuration changes
    necessary to address improved shelf life/reliability. Development
    upgrades planned for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011 will
    focus on the expansion of the number and capability of Ballistic
    Missile Defense System Ground Based Interceptor Engagement Sequence
    Groups, Warfighter enhancement options, and improved reliability,
    availability, and maintainability. Development program activities are
    being closely coordinated with sustainment activities to ensure maximum
    feedback from the fielded architecture into the development effort.
        Ground Based Interceptor component development is funded within the
    Ground Based Interceptor portion (which also funds flight and ground
    test interceptors, modeling and simulation development, common silo and
    common Command Launch Equipment development, launch complex ground/
    system testing, verification/validation and accreditation activities)
    of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense development and test project. I
    attached a copy for the record of a table that provides the budgeted
    and planned amounts for Ground Based Interceptor component development
    from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2011. I believe these amounts
    are sufficient.

     BUDGETED AND PLANNED AMOUNTS FOR GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE PROGRAM AND GROUND BASED INTERCEPTOR COMPONENT
                               DEVELOPMENT FROM FISCAL YEAR 2005 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2011
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal Year--
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010       2011
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total GMD Budget...................  3,318,623  2,298,031  2,701,940  2,473,388  2,064,754  1,895,820  1,562,709
    Total Development and Test.........  2,019,600  1,392,609  1,503,841  1,065,476  1,029,220  1,153,500  1,229,709
    GBI (Includes Test GBI Assets).....    621,577    359,900    515,300    413,325    399,400    383,500    388,225
    GBI Component Development..........    200,800    182,100    198,400    171,300    145,400    132,700    135,600
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Have you discovered anything that would indicate that the
    GMD Technology does not work or do we still have the confidence in the
    interceptors that have been fielded at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air
    Force Base? How do you plan to get GMD testing back on track? What will
    it cost to implement the recommendations of the Graham Panel?
        Answer. In light of the two recent tests in which interceptors
    failed to launch, I chartered the Independent Review Team in February
    to examine the failures in recent integrated flight tests of the
    Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System (BMDS). Dr. William Graham, Dr. William Ballhaus, and
    Major General (United States Army, Retired) Willie Nance (assisted by
    Dr. Widhopf and Mr. Tosney of Aerospace Corporation) were directed to:
    review analysis of the failures associated with Integrated Flight Tests
    10, 13C, and 14; understand the causes of Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense failures; determine any impact of these failures and other
    problems with the Ground-Based Interceptors and ground support
    equipment located at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base,
    California; review the pre-flight preparation and test execution
    process and provide recommendations as appropriate; and review in
    detail all actions required for a successful launch.
        The Independent Review Team completed its investigation and
    provided its outbrief to the Missile Defense Agency on March 31, 2005.
    The team determined that the inherent system design was sound and had
    been demonstrated to be effective in previous tests. The team also
    determined that in order to achieve a fully operational missile defense
    system, Ground-based Midcourse Defense needs to enter a new phase, one
    that emphasizes performance and reliability verification. Key
    recommendations include: establishing a more rigorous flight readiness
    certification process; strengthening systems engineering; performing
    additional ground-based qualification testing as a requirement for
    flight testing; holding contractor functional organizations accountable
    for supporting prime contract management; and assuring that the Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense program is executable.
        I concur with their findings and recommendations. To focus on these
    and several other initiatives to improve our mission assurance and
    quality control processes throughout the Ballistic Missile Defense
    System, I chartered Rear Admiral Kate Paige as Director of Mission
    Readiness, with responsibility for overarching mission readiness. She
    leads a small, highly experienced Mission Readiness Task Force
    chartered in part to develop a plan for the next few flight tests,
    including objectives and schedules. This flight test plan is part of a
    larger plan, which addresses processes and procedures to enhance the
    verification of operational readiness of the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense weapons system. The Independent Review Team report will be one
    of the many of inputs she uses to chart the way ahead. The Mission
    Readiness Task force recommendations will be available in June and will
    include cost and schedules for a new Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
    program plan. I will act upon these recommendations in the most
    effective manner possible.
        Question. I'm pleased that Airborne Laser (ABL) has made so much
    progress the last year, although much work remains to be done. Do these
    accomplishments give you confidence that the program can continue to
    overcome its remaining challenges?
        Answer. Yes. The two recent milestones were the culmination of a
    series of significant risk reduction activities including risk
    reduction demonstrations and component/subsystem demonstrations. The
    first laser light in the Systems Integration Lab was completed on
    November 10, 2004. The first aircraft flight with the combined Battle
    Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
    Intelligence and Beam Control/Fire Control systems was completed on
    December 3, 2004. The remaining program activities, with key knowledge
    points identified annually will continue to build our confidence in
    overcoming the remaining challenges on the program.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. I have been informed that Admiral Mullen, the President's
    nominee to be the next Chief of Naval Operations, views missile defense
    as a core Navy mission. As you noted in your testimony, the Navy has
    already deployed an Aegis cruiser with a midcourse defense capability,
    in addition to the Aegis system's surveillance and tracking
    capabilities. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor program offers the
    opportunity to expand on these mobile capabilities, and expand the
    layered system by providing a system that would engage its target
    during the boost phase. Could you update us on the progress of the
    Kinetic Energy Interceptor program?
        Answer. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor program is on track to
    demonstrate key boost/ascent phase intercept capabilities this year as
    incremental steps towards a 2008 decision as to if and how to proceed
    further. We have in the field today a mobile Kinetic Energy Interceptor
    Battle Management, Command Control and Communications prototype that is
    demonstrating, with real-time and playback data, our ability to
    generate rapid and accurate fire control solutions with overhead sensor
    data. Next year we plan to upgrade this operational prototype to
    integrate and fuse Ballistic Missile Defense System Forward Based X-
    band radar data with the overhead sensors. This Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor fire control capability investment will pay dividends for
    the entire Ballistic Missile Defense System by improving our ability to
    track, type, and predict threat trajectories in the early phases of
    flight.
        Our interceptor development team recently completed a wind tunnel
    test series and the composite case winding and cure of our second stage
    booster motor. We are on schedule for a late August/early September
    2005 static firing of a tactically-representative (same burn time and
    size as the objective design) second stage with a trapped-ball thrust
    vector control system. A tactically-representative first stage static
    firing with a flex-seal thrust vector control system is planned for
    January 2006. The interceptor team will complete an additional eight
    static fires (four with each stage) prior to executing the full-scale
    booster flight test in fiscal year 2008.
        The Kinetic Energy Interceptor specification requires a common
    interceptor design for land and sea basing operations. Sea-basing
    offers unique battlespace access, taking maximum advantage of KEI's
    mobility and its resulting ability to intercept missiles in their boost
    and ascent phases. We are working with the Navy to assess alternative
    platforms for this mission, including cruisers, destroyers and
    submarines. We expect to make a joint decision on a Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor platform strategy in late fiscal year 2006, but the
    acquisition of a sea-based Kinetic Energy Interceptor capability will
    not start until after our overall program plans are settled in fiscal
    year 2008.
        We believe that, for modest increases in funding, we can extend
    KEI's boost/ascent capability to provide a flexible, mobile midcourse
    layer to the Ballistic Missile Defense Systems as a complement to fixed
    site Ground-based Midcourse and sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile
    Defense. As a result, in fiscal year 2006 we are initiating
    requirements definition, concept design and performance assessment of
    the Kinetic Energy Interceptor capability in a mobile midcourse defense
    role (e.g., asymmetric defense of the United States and Allies).
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                 VALUE OF TEST RANGES TO MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

        Question. White Sands is perhaps the most unique installation in
    all of DOD and, when combined with Fort Bliss (most of which resides 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
    restricted airspace?
        Answer. MDA seeks to achieve realistic testing environments and
    maintain safety to the maximum practical extent. The large land area,
    accompanying restricted airspace and mobile instrumentation at White
    Sands Missile Range provides an excellent location for the conduct of
    short range tactical ballistic missile intercept tests. In the 1990's,
    we developed the Fort Wingate Launch Complex as a remote target launch
    facility to effectively increase the range of the tactical ballistic
    missile intercept tests. Since that time, we have maintained the land
    lease and evacuation rights to the western and northern expansion areas
    to expand capability and enhance safety. We plan to retain the majority
    of this capability for upcoming Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
    testing in fiscal year 2006.
        Question. Does this access provide the type of realistic testing
    environment needed to collect accurate data for your systems?
        Answer. For short range tactical ballistic missile target profiles,
    White Sands Missile Range's size, restricted air space, and array of
    fixed and mobile instrumentation make it an excellent environment for
    testing. Target launch facilities that MDA added at Fort Wingate allow
    flight profiles of up to 370 kilometers into the range. As test
    envelopes continue to expand, the capability of White Sands Missile
    Range is being exceeded. That requires us to look toward other test
    range options. White Sands Missile Range cannot accommodate the
    trajectory and debris hazard patterns from higher energy medium-range,
    intermediate-range and intercontinental ballistic missile targets and
    interceptors within its boundaries. These scenarios require larger and
    more remote ranges that provide the kind of test scenarios and safety
    that we need.
        Question. How will White Sands contribute to the success of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System in the future?
        Answer. There will continue to be opportunities to conduct
    Ballistic Missile Defense System tests at White Sands Missile Range. In
    addition to short range tactical ballistic missile tests, the Airborne
    Laser program, whose mission is to intercept targets in the boost
    phase, plans to conduct some initial tests at White Sands Missile
    Range.
        White Sands Missile Range is involved in the development and
    deployment of mobile instrumentation and sensors and provides
    knowledgeable test support personnel to support Ballistic Missile
    Defense System testing as members of the Pacific Range Support Team.
    For example, White Sands Missile Range mobile instrumentation and
    approximately 45 White Sands Missile Range test personnel were recently
    deployed to Kodiak, Alaska in support of Ballistic Missile Defense
    System test operations and MDA plans on continuing to use this type of
    support in the future.

               TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE TEST SCHEDULE

        Question. It is my understanding that the Terminal High Altitude
    Area Defense (THAAD) missile will return to flight testing at White
    Sands Missile Range this year, and that funding provides for additional
    tests next year.
        What is the THAAD testing schedule for this year and next? What
    will be the nature of those tests?
        Answer. CY 2005 Flight Testing.--THAAD Flight Test (FT)-01, planned
    in summer 2005, is a high-endoatmospheric Control Test Flight at White
    Sands Missile Range (WSMR). This mission will consist of a THAAD
    missile flight without a target to assess missile dynamic flight
    characteristics and vehicle controls in the high-endoatmospheric
    environment.
        THAAD FT-02, planned in late fiscal year 2005, is the first
    integrated system test including all THAAD components (Missile,
    Launcher, Radar and C2BMC). This flight test will be conducted at WSMR
    and will include a virtual target (injected into the radar) in lieu of
    an actual target, and will exercise all functions except the seeker
    endgame.
        THAAD FT-03, planned in early fiscal year 2006, is a Seeker
    Characterization flight with a target in the air, to characterize the
    behavior of the seeker. Although intended as a ``fly by'' against a
    live target, it could result in an intercept. This test will be
    conducted at WSMR against a HERA unitary target at a high-
    endoatmospheric altitude.
        CY 2006 Flight Testing.--THAAD FT-04, planned in second quarter
    fiscal year 2006, is an intercept attempt against an exoatmospheric
    HERA separating target to be conducted at WSMR.
        THAAD FT-05, planned in third quarter fiscal year 2006, is a low
    endoatmospheric Control Test Flight at WSMR of a THAAD missile flight
    without a target to assess missile dynamic flight characteristics and
    vehicle controls in the low-endoenvironment.
        THAAD FTT-06-1, planned in fourth quarter fiscal year 2006, is the
    first THAAD flight test at Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF). This
    is an integrated element test of a high endoatmospheric intercept
    attempt against a foreign target. It is the first THAAD system test
    against a threat representative target.
        THAAD FTT-06-2, planned in first quarter fiscal year 2007, is an
    intercept flight test mission at PMRF against a mid endoatmospheric
    foreign target.
        THAAD FTT-06-3, planned in first quarter fiscal year 2007, is an
    intercept flight test mission at PMRF against an exoatmospheric unitary
    target.
        Question. Since prior THAAD testing ended in 1999, how has MDA
    incorporated those testing results into today's system to make the
    missile more producible and more reliable?
        Answer. Since we completed testing in the previous phase of the
    program, we have implemented several initiatives that place increased
    emphasis and attention on quality, producibility, and reliability.
    Also, there was a comprehensive independent review conducted late in
    the previous phase of the program and those findings have been
    incorporated into this phase of development. These initiatives include
    an aggressive parts, materials, and processes program; reliability
    growth program; comprehensive closed-loop corrective action system;
    design simplification; enhanced Environmental Stress Screening (ESS);
    verification of critical missile functions (100 percent) prior to each
    flight; enhanced built-in test capability; and increased focus on
    foreign object elimination during assembly.
        We have also made improvements in the area of producibility, such
    as a more modular missile design, use of flex cables, reduction/
    elimination of blind mates (or connections hidden behind another
    object), improved production test equipment, and use of automated test
    software. Additionally, we have made changes to improve reliability,
    such as review and approval of all parts and materials during the
    design phase, more robust ESS, extensive qualification of hardware
    beyond expected flight environments, and margin testing of assemblies.

               ARROW MISSILE TESTING AT WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

        Question. I am told that White Sands Missile Range can support
    realistic testing of this shorter range Arrow missile.
        In your opinion, should the United States be supportive of this new
    Arrow program?
        Answer. The current Arrow system, supported by Patriot, has been
    developed and refined to defend Israel against medium-range and most
    short-range ballistic missiles, including SCUD missiles. In fact,
    flight testing in Israel and in the United States has shown the Arrow
    Weapon System to be effective against the short range threat.
    Furthermore, our joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow System Improvement Program
    continues to assess and improve the capability of the Arrow Weapon
    System to meet the evolving threat in the region.
        The proliferation of very short range ballistic missiles and large-
    caliber rockets is of great concern to both Israel and the United
    States. At present, the Israeli Patriot system has the capability to
    intercept some of these threats, albeit at a relatively high cost. In
    the United States, the Missile Defense Agency and the military services
    are developing other systems that will add to this capability in the
    future.
        We recognize that developing an effective yet low cost interceptor
    to defend against short range threats will be a significant challenge.
    Recently, Israel began evaluating the feasibility of two concepts for
    low-cost interceptor systems proposed by Israeli industry.
        Question. If so, do you agree that White Sands is the proper venue
    for hosting Arrow tests?
        Answer. It appears upon first examination that White Sands Missile
    Range is a suitable test range to conduct short range ballistic missile
    defense system testing; however, a final determination is contingent
    upon the results of the ongoing feasibility study.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Question. General Obering, I am sure you would agree that the Joint
    Project Office for Ground-Based Midcourse Defense has been an essential
    organization for the development and integration of our system at Fort
    Greely, AK. As the Ground Based Midcourse Defense System continues to
    evolve and mature, what future role do you see for the JPO GMD?
        Answer. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Joint Program Office has
    done, and continues to do, a remarkable job in developing, testing and
    fielding our initial defenses against intercontinental ballistic
    missiles. In the process, the Joint Program Office has developed an
    infrastructure and reservoir of experience and talent that we will
    continue to use for missile defense. As we move toward delivery of a
    truly integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System, we need to transform
    the Agency from one comprised of individual programs to one comprised
    of components that we can ultimately integrate into a layered ballistic
    missile defense system. Additionally, we are undertaking infrastructure
    reductions because of decreases in our topline budget over the next
    several years. To effectively deal with these, we are conducting an
    Agency-wide reengineering effort, which we expect to finish by the end
    of this summer. I will at that time inform the Committee of what, if
    any, effect there will be on the Joint Program Office. However, I can
    assure the Committee that the expertise in the Ground-Based Midcourse
    Defense Joint Program Office will not be lost.
        Question. Specifically, do you see their mission and
    responsibilities downsizing over the next year?
        Answer. I believe that the pace of work for the Ground-Based
    Midcourse Defense Joint Program Office will continue to be high during
    fiscal year 2006. There will be an intense workload associated with the
    testing of the system as well as the production of additional
    interceptors. I do see, however, that there will be some changes in the
    Joint Program Office mission and responsibilities because of our
    reengineering and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program's
    progress. For example, I see some diminished need for the site
    activation activity in the Joint Program Office. During fiscal year
    2006 Vandenberg Air Force Base and Fort Greely sites will mature and we
    are delaying a decision on a third site until fiscal year 2008.
    Importantly, we will leverage the site activation expertise within
    Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Joint Program Office in order to
    significantly improve Agency-wide efforts for site activation. Finally,
    there will be some consolidating of our functional activities such as
    contracting, security and testing in Huntsville to gain efficiencies
    and take broader advantage of the expertise we have developed in the
    Agency. I do not know how this will affect the Joint Program Office's
    mission and responsibilities. Once we complete the reengineering later
    this summer, I will inform the Committee if there is any downsizing in
    the Joint Program Office's mission and responsibilities.
        Question. Let me follow up on the KEI program. General Obering, are
    there plans in place to stand up a project office for this important
    initiative?
        Answer. We have had a project office in place since we signed the
    development contract with Northrop Grumman in December 2003. I expect
    we will be moving that project office to Redstone Arsenal as part of
    our reengineering effort.
        Question. If so, can you share with the Committee some of the time
    line details?
        Answer. We will be moving the program office responsibility to
    Redstone Arsenal over time beginning in 2006.
        Question. I am concerned about the lack of emphasis within MDA on
    technology development. Technology development funding for sensor
    improvement, better software, faster communications systems, improved
    propulsion systems, lighter and stronger structures, better thermal
    control, enhanced signature discrimination, decoy concepts and
    detection techniques are all vital areas of interest. Does MDA have an
    adequate technology development budget to support spiral development of
    all of your systems?
        Answer. We believe the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget strikes
    the right balance between fielding initial capabilities and developing
    future technologies. The Technology Program Element supports emerging
    technologies, including sensors, propulsion systems, radars, and
    discrimination. It also supports the need to address future threats or
    countermeasures, including technology work on enhanced discrimination,
    laser detection, and radar improvement efforts. Overall for fiscal year
    2006, we remain focused on the specific technology efforts that are
    necessary to field capabilities for the Ballistic Missile Defense
    System.
        Question. Do you have critical technology development requirements
    this budget isn't sufficient to support?
        Answer. No. Our critical requirements are funded and the fiscal
    year 2006 BMD Technology Program Element funding meets near-term and
    far-term requirements for the Ballistic Missile Defense System.
    However, as we focused on technology needed to support the block
    upgrade plan for capability improvements, we made the decision to
    discontinue the Discriminating Sensor Technology, a breadboard Laser
    Radar [LADAR] for Kill Vehicles, after Advanced Measurements Optical
    Range testing for this project concludes. Additionally, we reduced by
    40 percent the number of Laser Technology projects that integrate into
    Airborne Laser and laser radar sensor programs. We also delayed
    prototype demonstration efforts originally planned for the High
    Altitude Airship program due to funding reductions and programmatic
    issues.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

        Question. General Obering, several years ago the Defense Department
    terminated the Sea-Based Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program
    and since that time I believe your agency has been focusing on
    developing and deploying a Sea Based Mid-course capability in your
    Aegis/SM-3 program. It would appear that in situations where our forces
    are projected from the sea into combat operations ashore, you have a
    serious defensive gap that could place our forces in a situation where
    they could suffer undue casualties from tactical ballistic missile
    attacks without an assured lethal terminal capability. Is your agency
    developing a plan and budget to fill that sea-based terminal gap?
        Answer. The Navy and Missile Defense Agency are working together to
    identify options to provide a sea-based terminal ballistic missile
    defense capability. A joint working group was formally assembled in
    January to review recent analyses related to sea-based contributions to
    ballistic missile defense in the terminal phase. The objective of this
    assessment is to propose options that leverage existing Navy and MDA
    development programs in order to provide a mobile sea-based terminal
    BMD capability within the integrated layered ballistic missile defense
    system. The working group is scheduled to report its findings this
    summer, allowing us to make an informed decision in partnership with
    Navy leadership on an appropriate way ahead to address this need.
        Question. I am concerned, General Obering, that with the exception
    of the PAC-3 program, which is a land-based system, that there are no
    funds in the budget to finance a Sea Based Terminal Ballistic Missile
    Defense capability that will give us the same hit-to-kill lethality
    that your agency produced in PAC-3 and SM-3 in either this year's
    budget or in future-year budgets. Are you concerned about this Sea-
    Based Terminal gap and if so, what can we do to help you address it?
        Answer. Navy and MDA staffs are working closely to identify options
    leveraging existing Navy and MDA development efforts that can address
    this capability gap. We need to look at this issue in the context of
    the integrated layered system approach MDA is using to develop
    ballistic missile defenses. We have a joint working group that has been
    working this issue over the past several months and will report out
    this summer. We will work closely with Navy leadership to determine a
    way forward when we are better equipped to make an informed decision.
        Question. General, would you mind furnishing for the record what
    the sea-based terminal plan ahead is and the associated budget needed
    to finance it before we mark up the President's Budget Request?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget Request represents
    the best mix of funding for development and fielding of the Ballistic
    Missile Defense System. The Navy and MDA staffs are working closely to
    lay out potential options for leveraging existing programs to provide a
    sea-based terminal defense capability in future blocks. We anticipate
    being able to make an informed decision on funding requirements in
    fiscal year 2007 and beyond after the joint Navy-MDA working group
    completes their assessment and reports out later this summer.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                                      COST

        Question. President Bush has requested $9 billion for missile
    defense for fiscal year 2006. The United States has spent $92 million
    on missile defense since 1983 and the Administration anticipates
    spending an additional $58 billion over the next six years. Some
    experts put the overall price tag at well over $150 million. Given the
    number of national defense priorities we face--providing for non-
    proliferation activities, deterrence, homeland security--how do you
    justify spending so much on missile defense?
        Answer. I understand that from 1984 until now the total investment
    in ballistic missile defense made by MDA and its predecessor
    organizations has been about $94 billion. To put that in perspective,
    this is a little more than 1 percent of the total Defense budget.
    Today, the United States has an initial capability to destroy missiles
    heading towards the United States where before we had none. The Block
    2004 BMDS now in place cost about $11.5 billion over the period fiscal
    year 2002-fiscal year 2006. The GAO Report 02-700R estimated damage
    costs for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 alone at $83
    billion. The consequences of an attack by even a single WMD-tipped
    ballistic missile could cost far more.

                            PERFORMANCE AND TESTING

        Question. The missile defense system experienced two test failures
    in December, 2004 and February, 2005. The system was not declared
    operational at the end of 2004 as had been planned by the
    Administration. What criteria will you use to determine whether or not
    the system will be declared operational? When do you believe this will
    occur? Will you move forward with declaring the system operational if
    future tests fail?
        Answer. The initial Ballistic Missile Defense System elements
    planned by the Administration were deployed and operationally available
    at the end of 2004. Those elements could be placed into an operational
    status quickly should the situation dictate, and have been exercised to
    a launch ready status routinely during an on-going series of readiness
    demonstrations. However, the operational availability of the system
    must be balanced against the continuing need for testing and the
    integration of new features which provide expanded capability. But, if
    the nation needs it, we have an emergency capability.
        The Secretary of Defense will make the decision to declare the
    missile defense system operational based on several criteria, including
    but not limited to performance demonstrated during tests. He will make
    that declaration when his confidence in system performance reaches a
    level against the predicted threat he is comfortable with. Conversely,
    he will also make that declaration when the risk from that threat
    increases to the point he is uncomfortable without the protection the
    system provides, limited as it is today.
        When this occurs is difficult to say. Highly visible, successful
    flight tests build confidence in the system, but so do the less visible
    testing of individual components, modeling and simulations which are
    on-going and continuous, and held in conjunction with the war fighters.
    The war fighter's assessment of the system's utility, and their
    willingness to accept it in its current state, also builds my
    confidence.
        Whether or not a subsequent flight test failure would preclude
    declaring the system operational would depend on the root cause of the
    test failure. A failure that identifies an unanticipated problem that
    requires a system-wide reconfiguration could, depending upon risk,
    preclude an operational declaration. A failure due to an individual
    component which can be identified and corrected quickly may not.
        Question. You have said that the system could be ``turned on'' at
    any time, if an emergency arose. Do you have any plans to test the
    system as it would operate in that situation?
        Answer. Yes, the Missile Defense Agency--working closely with the
    Warfighter and testing community--conducts a wide variety of exercises
    and tests of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. For instance, there
    is a continuing exercise program that uses the operational system for
    Ballistic Missile Defense System Capability Readiness Exercises. These
    events are carried out to allow the Warfighters and technicians to
    practice and improve tactics, procedures, processes and checklists for
    such things as bringing the Ballistic Missile Defense System from one
    readiness condition to another. These activities have already
    successfully demonstrated our ability to transition the system from a
    developmental configuration to a defense capable configuration. The
    exercises have also demonstrated the ability of our Combatant
    Commanders to operate the system in the defense capable configuration.
        To characterize the performance of the currently available system,
    we have been conducting and will continue a flight and ground test
    program. The test program will increase the realism of our tests in a
    measured fashion, commensurate with risk and with the constraints of
    flight test range safety, and the needs for engineering data collection
    and evaluation. Although the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense element
    recently conducted two flight tests where the interceptor did not
    launch, there were significant segments of the test that operated
    successfully, providing excellent insight into technical and
    operational performance of those aspects of the system. For example,
    the target warhead configuration and motion was realistic and threat
    representative. The only sensor data allowed into the fire control
    processing was representative of the current operational system. The
    system demonstrated the ability to acquire, to track, classify, do real
    time engagement planning, generate sensor, communication, and weapon
    task plans, and to bring the interceptor to within two seconds of
    launch.
        I have asked Admiral Paige and her Mission Readiness Task Force to
    propose a plan for the next few flight tests, including objectives and
    schedules. This flight test plan is part of a larger plan, which
    addresses processes and procedures to enhance the verification of
    operational readiness of the GMD weapons system. Defining flight test
    objectives and schedules will be a logical part of this ongoing
    process. Over time, we intend to fold in more and more data from
    operational sensors and incorporate additional operational sensors
    (Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Long Range Surveillance and Tracking
    Destroyers, Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base,
    Forward Based X-Band Radar Transportable, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar,
    and others). We plan to begin launching operational missiles
    (configured for test in terms of range safety and data telemetry) from
    operational silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. As the
    Missile Defense Agency further develops the GMD test plan, program and
    procedures, we will continue to work closely with the Operational Test
    agencies and the Warfighter to craft test objectives and scenarios that
    further increase operational realism. The Warfighter is already an
    active participant in all aspects of the ground and flight test program
    and such participation has increased our confidence in the operation of
    the system.
        Question. In other words, will you test the system as it is
    currently being available, so we can get some sense of its capability
    right now? That would mean testing the system with:
      --No prior information on the enemy target, its launch time, intended
            target, trajectory, or target cluster;
      --No GPS or C-band beacon on the target reentry vehicle;
      --No SBIRS-High or STSS or simulated information from such sources;
      --With only early warning radars, e.g. Aegis, Beale;
      --With no floating X-band radar until it is actually operational;
      --With only DSP for satellite coverage.
        Answer. Yes, the Missile Defense Agency--working closely with the
    Warfighter and testing community--conducts a wide variety of exercises
    and tests of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. For instance, there
    is a continuing exercise program that uses the operational system for
    Ballistic Missile Defense System Capability Readiness Exercises. These
    events are carried out to allow the Warfighters and technicians to
    practice and improve tactics, procedures, processes and checklists for
    such things as bringing the Ballistic Missile Defense System from one
    readiness condition to another. These activities have already
    successfully demonstrated our ability to transition the system from a
    developmental configuration to a defense capable configuration. The
    exercises have also demonstrated the ability of our Combatant
    Commanders to operate the system in the defense capable configuration.
        To characterize the performance of the currently available system,
    we have been conducting and will continue a flight and ground test
    program. The test program will increase the realism of our tests in a
    measured fashion, commensurate with risk and with the constraints of
    flight test range safety, and the needs for engineering data collection
    and evaluation. Although the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense element
    recently conducted two flight tests where the interceptor did not
    launch, there were significant segments of the test that operated
    successfully, providing excellent insight into technical and
    operational performance of those aspects of the system. For example,
    the target warhead configuration and motion was realistic and threat
    representative. The only sensor data allowed into the fire control
    processing was representative of the current operational system. The
    system demonstrated the ability to acquire, to track, classify, do real
    time engagement planning, generate sensor, communication, and weapon
    task plans, and to bring the interceptor to within two seconds of
    launch.
        I have asked Admiral Paige and her Mission Readiness Task Force to
    propose a plan for the next few flight tests, including objectives and
    schedules. This flight test plan is part of a larger plan, which
    addresses processes and procedures to enhance the verification of
    operational readiness of the GMD weapons system. Defining flight test
    objectives and schedules will be a logical part of this ongoing
    process. Over time, we intend to fold in more and more data from
    operational sensors and incorporate additional operational sensors
    (Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Long Range Surveillance and Tracking
    Destroyers, Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base,
    Forward Based X-Band Radar Transportable, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar,
    and others). We plan to begin launching operational missiles
    (configured for test in terms of range safety and data telemetry) from
    operational silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. As the
    Missile Defense Agency further develops the GMD test plan, program and
    procedures, we will continue to work closely with the Operational Test
    agencies and the Warfighter to craft test objectives and scenarios that
    further increase operational realism. The Warfighter is already an
    active participant in all aspects of the ground and flight test program
    and such participation has increased our confidence in the operation of
    the system.
        Question. When do you plan to test against: a. a tumbling warhead?
    b. against more than one target warhead? c. without prior knowledge of
    the target, its trajectory, or the target cluster? d. at night? e.
    without a GPS or C-band beacon on the target warhead?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency, working closely with the
    Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, has developed the BMDS test
    bed that significantly improves the test infrastructure by providing
    operational assets to participate in more operationally realistic, end-
    to-end ground tests and flight test scenarios. The Missile Defense
    Agency and the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation are working
    with the Operational Test Agency team to increase operational realism
    through the test planning process, consistent with the maturity of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System test bed. The test bed enables the
    Department of Defense to develop operational concepts, techniques, and
    procedures, while allowing the Operational Test & Evaluation office to
    exploit and characterize its inherent defensive capability.
    ``Operational Testing'' is a term typically used for traditional tests
    that are conducted on mature developmental systems by an operational
    test agent. Because of the scope and complexity of BMDS, as well as the
    urgency of the mission, DOT&E, their operational test agents, the BMDS
    operational military commands and MDA have teamed to conduct tests that
    meet all our objectives as we incrementally increase system capability
    through the spiral Block process. The term ``operationally realistic''
    is used for these combined tests to identify those processes,
    procedures and scenarios that are the same as or closely replicate
    those that will be used in real world operations.
        All operationally oriented testing of complex systems is
    necessarily constrained by such real world issues as the need for range
    safety and to equip the missile with instrumentation to collect data.
    In a system as geographically dispersed as GMD, the issue of test
    geometries vs. operational assets and test launch facilities is an
    added constraint which we are mitigating with the ability to launch
    targets from Kodiak, Alaska, among other initiatives.
        We will continue to work closely with the Operational Test agencies
    and the Warfighters to craft test objectives and scenarios; in
    particular, Warfighters have already begun participating directly in
    ground and flight testing in an operationally realistic manner. As the
    system maturity increases and is demonstrated in test, we will further
    increase the operational realism of the tests, in a measured fashion to
    help us evaluate the system's technical and operational capabilities.
        Question. Why is there no operational testing planned for the
    ground-based mid-course system deployed in Alaska and California, but
    only ``more operationally realistic tests?''
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency, working closely with the
    Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, has developed the BMDS test
    bed that significantly improves the test infrastructure by providing
    operational assets to participate in more operationally realistic, end-
    to-end ground tests and flight test scenarios. The Missile Defense
    Agency and the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation are working
    with the Operational Test Agency team to increase operational realism
    through the test planning process, consistent with the maturity of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System test bed. The test bed enables the
    Department of Defense to develop operational concepts, techniques, and
    procedures, while allowing the Operational Test & Evaluation office to
    exploit and characterize its inherent defensive capability.
    ``Operational Testing'' is a term typically used for traditional tests
    that are conducted on mature developmental systems by an operational
    test agent. Because of the scope and complexity of BMDS, as well as the
    urgency of the mission, DOT&E, their operational test agents, the BMDS
    operational military commands and MDA have teamed to conduct tests that
    meet all our objectives as we incrementally increase system capability
    through the spiral Block process. The term ``operationally realistic''
    is used for these combined tests to identify those processes,
    procedures and scenarios that are the same as or closely replicate
    those that will be used in real world operations.
        All operationally oriented testing of complex systems is
    necessarily constrained by such real world issues as the need for range
    safety and to equip the missile with instrumentation to collect data.
    In a system as geographically dispersed as GMD, the issue of test
    geometries vs. operational assets and test launch facilities is an
    added constraint which we are mitigating with the ability to launch
    targets from Kodiak, Alaska, among other initiatives.
        We will continue to work closely with the Operational Test agencies
    and the Warfighters to craft test objectives and scenarios; in
    particular, Warfighters have already begun participating directly in
    ground and flight testing in an operationally realistic manner. As the
    system maturity increases and is demonstrated in test, we will further
    increase the operational realism of the tests, in a measured fashion to
    help us evaluate the system's technical and operational capabilities.
        Question. Isn't it useful to test a system under operationally
    realistic conditions, i.e., operational testing, to determine the true
    effectiveness of the system?
        Answer. Yes. Testing the BMDS in scenarios that closely approximate
    all the conditions and environments of actual operational missions
    provides the fullest demonstration of system effectiveness. The BMDS
    test program will progressively increase scenario realism, as the
    system matures, to the extent possible within the constraints of flight
    safety and geographical limitations of the test ranges. BMDS tests
    include both developmental and operational test objectives and
    requirements. In general, the BMDS test program will increase
    operational realism with each successive test as outlined in the Joint
    MDA and DOT&E document ``Ballistic Missile Defense System Response to
    Section 234 Increasing Operational Realism'' dated April 4, 2005.
        Question. If the missiles deployed in Alaska and California are
    ``better than nothing'' and the United States is wary of a North Korean
    ballistic missile threat, why isn't the system turned on 24/7?
        Answer. The fielded Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed
    supports the continued development and testing of new and evolving
    Ballistic Missile Defense System technologies. We have an emergency
    capability now, and we are making progress towards being able to
    operate on a 24/7 basis. The system has not been turned on 24/7
    because, since October 2004, we have been in a ``shakedown'' or check-
    out period similar to that used as part of the commissioning of a U.S.
    Navy ship before it enters the operational fleet. 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 if called upon to do so. We have
    exercised the command, fire control, battle management and
    communication capabilities critical to the operation of the system. The
    Aegis ships have been periodically put on station in the Sea of Japan
    to provide long-range surveillance and tracking data to our battle
    management system. We have fully integrated the Cobra Dane radar into
    the system, and it is ready for operational use even as it continues to
    play an active role in our test program by providing data on targets of
    opportunity. Finally, we have executed a series of exercises with the
    system that involves temporarily putting the system in a launch-ready
    state. This has enabled us to learn a great deal about the system's
    operability. It also allows us to demonstrate our ability to transition
    from developmental testing to operational support and back. This
    enables us to continue to improve the capabilities of the system over
    time, even as we remain ready to use its inherent defensive capability
    should the need arise.

                                  INTERCEPTORS

        Question. Can you explain to me why we should continue to purchase
    additional ground-based interceptors, specifically why we should
    initial funding for #31-40, when we have not had a single successful
    test with this model?
        Answer. North Korea's Taepo Dong-2 intercontinental ballistic
    missile could deliver a nuclear warhead to parts of the United States
    in a two-stage variant and all of the North America in a three-stage
    variant. This missile may be ready for testing. The Defense
    Intelligence Agency has assessed that Iran will have the technical
    capability to develop an ICBM by 2015, though it is not clear that they
    have decided to field such a missile. Additionally, according to the
    Warfighters, one of the primary system limitations is that there are
    too few interceptors. Finally, all of our testing indicates that the
    interceptor design is sound. Our recent failures have not been related
    to the interceptor design, and though disappointing, I do not think
    these failures warrant a costly break in our plan for continued
    development and testing of the interceptor. We have already stretched
    out the delivery of the Ground Based Interceptor 21-30 buy to the
    greatest extent possible without causing a break in manufacturing. If
    deficiencies are discovered in future flight or ground testing, we have
    time to accommodate them.
        Question. You have testified previously [before the SASC, April 7]
    that it would cost $260 million to $300 million to reconstitute the
    ground-based interceptor booster production should it be shut down. Can
    you please break down those costs in detail--how much would be fines we
    would pay, how much would be restarting the line?
        Answer. The primary driver for the cost of a break in the
    manufacturing line is the length of time the line is not operational.
    The longer the shut down period, the greater the increased costs for
    reconstituting the 2nd and 3rd tier vendor base and for mitigating the
    effects of loss of quality control processes and subcontractor/supplier
    obsolescence. If there is a three-month break, the estimated cost to
    restart the manufacturing line is $237 million. If there is a six-month
    break, the estimated cost is $262 million. If there is a one-year
    break, the estimated cost is $300 million. The major cost drivers for a
    six-month break are: loss of learning ($72 million), restoration/
    recertification of the manufacturing line(s) ($105 million), loss of
    sole source 2nd and 3rd tier vendors ($45 million), and subcontractor/
    supplier parts obsolescence ($40 million).
        The Missile Defense Agency views the break even point for the
    ground based interceptor manufacturing lines as less than five
    interceptors per year. Below five per year, the unit costs of the
    manufactured interceptors increase to a point where it is more cost
    effective to allow the manufacturing line break. However, the current
    Agency budget provides for no less than eight interceptors per year.
    This profile does not provide for optimum unit cost efficiency but it
    does provide an acceptable unit cost and precludes any break in the
    manufacturing line. I have provided a copy of the Manufacturing Rate
    Impact on GBI Unit Prices chart for the record.

        Question. You have said that the kill vehicle has 62 percent of the
    same software and 67 percent of the same hardware as the version flight
    tested years ago. That means that over one-third of the system is
    different, yet we are planning to buy ten more of these kill vehicles
    and the boosters that go with them, despite the fact that we don't have
    a single successful test with this booster or kill vehicle. Why does
    that make sense?
        Answer. The overall functionality of the kill vehicle has not
    changed since the earliest flight tests demonstrated the soundness of
    the basic design. The changes have focused on producibility, parts
    obsolescence, reliability, and algorithm improvements. These changes
    have been verified by extensive ground-based hardware- and processor-
    in-the-loop testing. Buying more kill vehicles is not a high risk
    proposition.
        Question. Are any missile defense tests planned from the silos in
    which interceptor missiles are currently installed?
        Answer. Although, we may at some future date conduct Ground-based
    Missile Defense flight testing out of Fort Greely, Alaska where
    interceptors are currently installed, plans for such flight test from
    the silos in Fort Greely are being held in abeyance pending required
    environmental and safety approval processes. The Ground-based Missile
    Defense system also currently has four operationally configured silos
    at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Two of these Vandenberg AFB silos, do not
    currently have interceptors installed, and we intend to use these silos
    for missile defense flight testing.
        I have asked Admiral Paige and her Mission Readiness Task Force to
    propose a plan for the next few flight tests, including objectives and
    schedules. This flight test plan is part of a larger plan, which
    addresses processes and procedures to enhance the verification of
    operational readiness of the GMD weapons system. Defining flight test
    objectives and schedules will be a logical part of this ongoing
    process. Admiral Paige and the Mission Readiness Task Force will
    recommend a path forward for the GMD program.

                   COUNTERMEASURE AND COUNTERMEASURE TESTING

        Question. You recently said that the ground-based system has been
    tested against balloon countermeasures. However, those tests involved
    balloons that were significantly different in size than the warhead,
    and therefore had significantly different infrared signatures. In
    essence, you demonstrated that your sensors and interceptor can
    differentiate between large, medium and small. While this is a
    significant accomplishment, it's also something that dogs and one-year
    old babies can do. But it is nothing like situation the defense would
    face in the real world, where the balloons and the warhead would be
    made to look alike. How would the system differentiate in that
    scenario?
        Answer. [Deleted].
        Question. If North Korea launched a missile at us today, and the
    target suite included a dozen or more objects designed to have infrared
    signatures identical to the warhead, how could the kill vehicle decide
    which was the real target?
        Answer. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Exoatmospheric Kill
    Vehicle decides between the warhead and other objects by using multiple
    infrared and visible sensors, each capable of measuring multiple
    features. These features are based upon fundamental physical
    characteristics of the object. Non-warhead objects generally do not
    have signatures identical to the warhead for all the measured features.
    Flight testing has demonstrated the ability of the EKV to discriminate
    between the real target and other objects with similar infrared
    signatures. In addition, it is important to point out that the kill
    vehicle also relies on other GMD system elements for input. For
    instance, data from ground-based radars are relayed to the
    Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle and are also used to decide which object is
    the warhead. The radar data represents an independent set of target
    features, making it more difficult for all warhead target features to
    be replicated by the other objects. The combination of infrared and
    visible sensors, and radar data enable the GMD system to discriminate
    between warheads and countermeasures and debris.
        Question. What is the status of the Red, Blue, and White teams
    created to increase the robustness of the countermeasures element of
    the missile defense testing program? Are they still functioning? How do
    they interface with the Missile Defense Agency?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency Countermeasures/Counter-
    Countermeasures Program's Red, Black, Blue, and White Teams are active
    and functioning. The Red, Black, Blue, and White Teams assess technical
    risks, identify mitigation approaches, and support development of
    engineering changes to the baseline Ballistic Missile Defense System to
    improve performance against adversary capabilities, focusing primarily
    on addressing countermeasures. The teams are managed and funded under
    the Missile Defense Agency Deputy for Systems Engineering and
    Integration, and their products are integrated across all aspects of
    the Ballistic Missile Defense System, to include testing.
        Question. A group of 22 scientists recently said that the current
    system ``will be unable to counter a missile attack that includes even
    unsophisticated countermeasures.'' Do you agree with that assessment?
        Answer. No, based upon a large body of ground and flight test data
    I disagree with that assessment.. The ability of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System to respond to countermeasures has always been a critical
    objective of the MDA ground and flight test program. The Ground-Based
    Midcourse Defense element, for example, executed in fiscal year 2004
    and fiscal year 2005 a series of high-fidelity hardware-in-the-loop
    ground test campaigns employing operational hardware and software;
    these tests included various so-called unsophisticated countermeasures.
    The hardware-in-the-loop test campaigns were preceded by a detailed
    series of ground test events using high fidelity digital simulations of
    the Ballistic Missile Defense System. These digital simulations
    included various countermeasures but with a significantly larger number
    of countermeasure variations. These tests have indicated that the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System has a significant initial capability
    to operate against some countermeasure types.
        In parallel with the ground test venues, there has been flight
    testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense. Using a prototype
    Ground-Based Interceptor, GMD was successfully tested against
    increasingly threat-representative separating reentry vehicles
    accompanied by various debris and countermeasure objects with four hit-
    to-kill successes out of five tests.
        Research, development and testing of new discrimination approaches
    also continues. The development effort includes dedicated
    countermeasure flight tests as well as dedicated counter-countermeasure
    ground and flight test demonstrations. Comprehensive countermeasure
    data have been acquired during these developmental flight tests for all
    the countermeasures listed above; flight data on other more advanced
    countermeasures have also been obtained. These data are currently being
    used in the development and testing of additional counter-
    countermeasures capabilities to be implemented in Block 2004 Ballistic
    Missile Defense System and beyond.
        Question. Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the Director of the Defense
    Intelligence Agency, recently suggested that North Korea may have
    developed a small nuclear warhead cable of being delivered onto U.S.
    territory. Do you agree with that assessment? If the North Koreans
    don't have the capacity today, how soon could they develop it?
        Answer. As Mr. Di Rita pointed out in the press conference on April
    29th, there is no new assessment on North Korea. Just to reiterate the
    official assessment of the Taepo Dong-2, I'd like to quote from Vice
    Admiral Jacoby's February 16th statement to the Senate Select Committee
    on Intelligence, ``North Korea continues to invest in ballistic
    missiles to defend itself against attack, achieve diplomatic advantage
    and provide hard currency through foreign sales. Its Taepo Dong-2
    intercontinental ballistic missile may be ready for testing. This
    missile could deliver a nuclear warhead to parts of the United States
    in a two stage variant and target all of North America with a three
    stage variant.''

                                 EFFECTIVENESS

        Question. In March of 2003, Edward ``Pete'' Aldridge, who was then
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that
    the ground-based interceptor system would be 90 percent effective. Can
    you explain how he arrived at that figure and what data it is based on?
    Do you agree with his assessment?
        Answer. Yes, I agree with his assessment. The effectiveness figure
    you cited is known as Probability of Engagement Success. The equation
    relating the probability of engagement success includes the number of
    shots and the probability of kill of the interceptors. It also includes
    all non-kill contributions such as availability, detection, tracking
    and planning which are correlated with each shot against a single
    missile.
        [Deleted].
        Question. David Duma, the Acting Director of the Pentagon's
    Operational Test and Evaluation Office, recently testified that ``I
    don't think that you can say the system is operationally ready today.''
    What is your view of his assessment?
        Answer. David Duma made two principal points in his testimony. I
    concur with both. First, he stated that ``integrated ground testing
    results to date indicate the testbed has the potential to defend
    against a limited attack under certain conditions,'' but ``difficulties
    in the flight test program have delayed the confirmation of intercept
    capability using the testbed.'' He also stated that the ``maturity of
    the testbed will not yet support realistic operational end-to-end
    testing.'' Both points are valid, and we at the Missile Defense Agency
    are working hard to address them in the remaining months of 2005.
        The recent test aborts we experienced were major disappointments,
    but they were not major technical setbacks. We recognize the importance
    of demonstrating the effectiveness of our system, and realize that
    confidence in its capabilities will be limited until we can demonstrate
    a successful intercept during an operationally realistic test. We
    currently plan to conduct an end-to-end test with operational assets
    this calendar year, and expect to execute three to four more during
    2006. In planning our future test program, I work closely with Mr.
    Duma, and we have jointly approved an integrated master test plan
    through 2007 that combines developmental and operational testing to
    reduce costs and increase test efficiency.
        The maturity of the testbed will also increase significantly when
    the Sea-based X-band radar arrives in the North Pacific later this
    year. While COBRA DANE and Aegis radars can provide initial defensive
    capability, this new radar is an essential element to provide mid-
    course discrimination and track updates.
        Until we complete operationally realistic testing, we will not have
    complete confidence that the system is operationally ready. We do,
    however, currently have deployed an increasingly robust system that
    provides an emergency capability.
        Question. The Missile Defense Agency has not been able to conduct a
    successful test even of the highly scripted series currently underway
    since October 2002? How can the system have any credibility?
        Answer. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense System has proven Hit-
    to-Kill technology works, and that far-flung sensors, command & control
    components and interceptors can work together to kill a threat target.
    It has done this not only through 5 successful flight tests, but also
    through significant integrated ground testing of the software/hardware-
    in-the-loop, providing confidence that the system will perform as
    designed.
        The Agency was not successful on recent flight tests, two of which
    failed to launch the interceptor. However, we have root caused the
    problems, implemented corrective actions, and brought in two separate
    teams of experts to independently assess these and other processes
    across the program. The Independent Review Team (IRT), led by Dr. Bill
    Graham, reviewed the flight failures, and recommended process changes
    to address flaws that they identified. The Director, MDA then
    established the Mission Readiness Task Force, including elements of GMD
    and Boeing, under the command of RAdm Kate Paige to implement changes
    as necessary to assure a GMD system that is ready and able whenever
    called upon by an operational commander, or a test director, based on
    recommendations from the IRT, GMD & Boeing initiatives, and her own
    Task Force.
        The successful testing that has been accomplished to date does not
    excuse the recent flight failures, but it does put the condition of the
    system in perspective and provide confidence that we do indeed have a
    thin line of defense available to us today.
        Examples of the successful testing accomplished over the last one-
    two years follow:
        Four software/hardware-in-the-loop Integrated Ground Tests, and
    four System Integration and Check-Out Tests using the actual deployed
    system. Integrated Ground Tests use a software and hardware-in-the-loop
    configuration in the laboratory to test the system against an array of
    threat scenarios. Approximately 80 percent of the laboratory ground
    test configuration is the real Ground-based Midcourse Defense Software/
    Hardware and the remaining 20 percent is simulated. The simulated
    portions of the test configurations are accredited to represent the
    threat, environments, and those portions of the system such as
    interceptor fly out, that are not possible in a laboratory. A
    comprehensive set of System Integration and Check Out tests on the
    deployed system certify that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
    interfaces are fully operational in a fielded environment.
        Ground-based Midcourse Defense conducted a successful flight test
    of the operational configuration of the booster vehicle in January
    2004.
        During IFT-13C and IFT-14, the two recent flight tests where the
    interceptor failed to launch, we were able to test the command and
    control components and their ability to accurately generate sensor,
    communications and weapons task plans necessary to automatically
    initiate the interceptor launch process.
        IFT-13C and IFT-14, as well as the Integrated Ground Tests and
    System Integration and Check Out Tests, exercised the warfighting
    procedures, with soldiers under operational command operating the
    warfighting consoles and operational test agencies observing and
    evaluating.
        Question. The United States has been vigorously pursuing a national
    missile defense for many years. Do you believe that our program has
    served as a deterrent on the nuclear weapons aspirations of either the
    Iranians or the North Koreans?
        Answer. I have not seen any evidence that would indicate that
    either North Korea or Iran has been deterred in their nuclear weapons
    aspirations by our program. I am certain, however, that the serious
    commitment the United States has demonstrated to developing and
    fielding effective missile defenses has greatly complicated the ability
    of North Korea and Iran to threaten the United States with nuclear
    weapon delivery systems.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. Our subcommittee will now stand in recess
    until next Tuesday, May 17, when we receive testimony from
    public witnesses concerning the President's budget request.
    That will be an almost all-day hearing.
        Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday,
    May 17.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:28 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Bond, and Inouye.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good afternoon. This is the afternoon for
    public witnesses for consideration for the fiscal year 2006
    defense budget. We have 25 witnesses who have indicated they
    want to testify or submit statements for the record. To keep us
    on schedule, we are going to have to ask that you limit your
    testimony to 4 minutes each. I have to warn you there is going
    to be votes throughout the afternoon and Senator Inouye and I
    are going to be leapfrogging back and forth, and we have
    scheduled this this afternoon because we believe that there is
    going to be all sorts of problems on the floor tomorrow.
        We do appreciate your interest and want you to know, as we
    have every year, we are going to review carefully the items you
    present to us. Your prepared statements will be included in the
    record in full, and when my good friend comes, Senator Inouye,
    our co-chairman, we will, as I indicated, share listening to
    your presentations.
        Our first witness is Susan Lukas, the Legislative Director
    of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. Ms.
    Lukas.

    STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. LUKAS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
                RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
                STATES
        Ms. Lukas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over 75,000 members
    of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA), I would like to
    thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
        The Reserve components have always relied on Congress to
    provide appropriations for their equipment requirements. While
    active duty considers Guard and Reserve needs, as you know,
    they do not always rate high enough to be funded in the
    President's budget. In particular, your subcommittee's support
    has been invaluable.
        Our testimony this year mainly focuses on equipment needed
    for force protection and mission support. While one would not
    necessarily think of Army trucks as offering personal
    protection, this war has shown us how vulnerable our people are
    when driving vehicles.
        At a recent ROA convention, an Army non-commissioned
    officer (NCO) said he worked hard to train his soldiers how to
    drive in convoy, but nothing could prepare them for the
    conditions they had to operate under. He said one of the first
    things he learned was to drive as fast as if your life depended
    on it, because it did.
        You can well imagine, between those conditions, the
    environment and demands, the fleet is aging quickly. For
    example, there are about 1,800 long haul tractor-trucks being
    used in Iraq. Forty percent of the fleet is at a 20-year life
    expectancy level. The new trucks will reduce fuel and can
    accept 2,900 pounds of up-armoring. This is but one example of
    the trucks that need replacement in the Army.
        The Naval Reserve needs to meet mission requirements by
    replacing their C-9 fleet as it is not compliant with either
    future global navigation requirements or European flight
    restrictions.
        Congress has supported appropriations for the littoral
    surveillance system and continuing support would allow the
    Naval Reserve to meet their homeland security mission and
    deploy this equipment with the fleet.
        The Air Force Reserve equipment requirements focus on
    countermeasure protections such as the large aircraft infrared
    countermeasures system (LAIRCM), LITENING Pods, color radar for
    C-130s, and C-5 Airlift Defense Systems. I will not go into
    detail on the equipment as it is covered in our written
    testimony.
        Several years ago ROA suspected stop-loss and mobilization
    would reduce recruiting and retention. Unfortunately, this has
    happened. The Reserve chiefs recently testified before your
    subcommittee that increased bonus authority has made a
    difference. While bonuses are an effective tool, ROA asks for
    consideration to fully fund advertising and marketing, tuition
    assistance, family support, special training, and school tours.
        In closing, the bond between the United States (U.S.)
    military and our civilian communities is strengthened by the
    mobilization of neighbors and fellow workers, our reservists
    and National Guardsmen. The move toward using the Guard and
    Reserve to meet operational requirements is a natural evolution
    of this very capable force. However, force transformation needs
    to retain surge capability in order to meet emerging threats or
    demands. The Guard and Reserve can be configured to meet both
    operational and surge requirements.
        I look forward to answering any questions you may have and
    again thank you for allowing me to speak to the subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Susan E. Lukas

                                  INTRODUCTION

        ROA's legislative goals for this year have focused on mobilization
    and recruiting and retention. These 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.
        A key factor in supporting the Reserve Components is funding their
    training needs. Cost avoidance cuts for the past 2 years have forced
    the services to take reductions in mobilization training,
    demobilization training, recruiting training, annual training, special
    training, and bonus authorities' accounts. ROA urges Congress to fully
    fund these accounts and reverse the cost avoidance reductions.

                      NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

    Army Reserve
        Equipping both existing units and new units will be a considerable
    task. Units that deployed and took their equipment to combat have left
    the equipment in the theater. It may have even been damaged or
    destroyed. Many units were already short critical equipment. As the
    Army Reserve creates its ``force packages'' it is understood that the
    earlier deploying force package units will be equipped first. Other
    units will have ``mission essential equipment for training'' and as
    they move closer to their respective rotation dates, they will receive
    more of their needed equipment. There will also likely be increased use
    of pre-positioned equipment much the same as was done during the Cold
    War and to an extent is being done today. The Army Reserve has
    identified fiscal year 2006 as the ``Year of Equipping.'' In doing so,
    they are giving particular emphasis to critical equipment shortfalls
    that will impact the transformation to rotational force packages,
    training, and mission accomplishment. Many of the items on the
    ``Unresourced Equipment and Modernization Requirements'' have not
    changed. Priorities may have moved up or down and quantities may have
    increased.
                Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV)
        This critical item was No. 1 in fiscal year 2005 and will remain
    the No. 1 equipment priority in fiscal year 2006. As indicated earlier,
    the Army Reserve's transportation role is crucial to mission
    accomplishment. The FMTV replaces many Vietnam-era trucks whose
    effective life cycle ended some time ago.
        Required.--4,512; Short.--2,683; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--600;
    Cost.--$91.8 million.
                Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV)
        This item was No. 2 last year and remains the No. 2 equipment
    priority. The vehicles that the MTV's replace are past their useful
    life and the cost to keep them running can challenge the cost of
    procuring the newer and more efficient MTV. The requirement has not
    changed and the number that is currently on hand is staggeringly low.
        Required.--8,784; Short.--6,712; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--800;
    Cost.--$146 million.
                Multi-Band Super High Frequency Terminal
        The Army Reserve provides the majority of the Theater Signal
    management in the Army. The terminal provides inter-theater and intra-
    theater range extension support. The fiscal year 2005 buy would fill
    the requirement of one integrated Theater Signal Brigade.
        Required.--50; Short.--46; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--10; Cost.--$30
    million.
                Truck, Cargo PLS 10X10 M1075 and PLS Trailer
        Again, the combat service support role of the Army Reserve
    highlights the need for the most current model. This requirement also
    includes the Tactical Fire Fighting Truck.
        Truck/Trailer Required.--929/1,484; Short.--275/769; Fiscal Year
    2006 Buy.--88/56; Cost.--$25.4 million/$3.0 million.
                Improved High Frequency Radio (IRFR)
        Provides voice transmission for battle command and is the primary
    means of communications for maneuver battalions.
        Required.--1,750; Short.--937; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--937; Cost.--
    $39.8 million.
                High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
        This is the standard version of the much used workhorse of the
    Army. All units need them. Many in the Army Reserve are older models
    and Active Army ``hand-me-downs'' that might not meet deployment
    standards when a unit is mobilized.
        Required.--13,919; Short.--1,543; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--321;
    Cost.--$24.0 million.
                Up Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
                        (HMMWV)
        Much has been reported about the need for this critical vehicle in
    the combat zones. Many units are attempting to ``up-armor'' their
    vehicles in the theater with whatever might be available. This is a
    survival item and needs to be resourced.
        Required.--738; Short.--705; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--308; Cost.--
    $55.1 million.
                Truck, Tractor Line Haul (M915A3)
        These vehicles haul bulk fuel and supplies from port to combat
    areas for disbursement to brigades. About 1,800 trucks are currently
    being used in Iraq. Forty percent of the fleet is at their life
    expectancy level of 20 years and the current replacement plan would
    take many out to over 30 years old. The Line Haul Tractor would
    decrease fuel demands and maintenance costs. Fuel savings alone could
    buy 140 trucks. Most importantly the suspension system is configured to
    accept the 2,900 pounds of up-armoring required for each truck.
        Required.--2,445; Short.--1,389; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--92; Cost.--
    $87 million.
                HEMTT Load Handling System
        This requirement would fill the much needed requirement for the
    Improved Cargo Handling Operations and Medical Supply Companies. At the
    present time, there are none on hand in these units.
        Required.--44; Short.--44; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--44; Cost.--$10
    million.
                Tactical Fire Fighting Truck
        This improved item of equipment is critical to both the Army
    Reserve's Engineer Fire Fighting units as well as Ammunition Support
    Teams.
        Required.--72; Short.--43; Fiscal Year 2006 Buy.--10; Cost.--$6.0
    million.
        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 of state for mobilization.
    Frequently the funds were used to purchase commercial off the-shelf
    items that units were unable to obtain through traditional sources.
    However, in 1997 an agreement between the administration and Congress
    eliminated the account with the objective of the active component
    providing the needed funds through their individual appropriations.
        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. Today, the ability to use NGREA funds for cost effective
    acquisition is virtually non-existent as the amount appropriated is a
    fraction of what the Army Reserve requires to meet immediate needs. An
    analysis has shown that with the implementation of the post-1997
    policy, there has been an overall decrease in procurement for the
    reserve components. In fiscal year 2004, procurement for the Reserve
    Components as a percentage of the DOD procurement budget is at its
    second lowest in recorded history at 3.19 percent. This comes even
    after a congressional add of $400 million for NGREA. Meanwhile,
    procurement for the Active Component continues to realize consistent
    real growth from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2009 of 108.6
    percent. 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. Also, 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.
    Naval Reserve
                C-40
        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. Boeing offered the 737-700 new technology aircraft
    in response to the Navy's request for proposal.
        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 8 pallets of cargo, or a
    combination configuration consisting of 3 pallets and 70 passengers.
    The C-40A is able to carry 121 passengers or 40,000 pounds of cargo,
    compared with 90 passengers or 30,000 pounds for the C-9. In addition,
    the maximum range for the Clipper is approximately 1,500 miles more
    than the C-9.
        Upgrading the aging C-9 Skytrain II airframe with new engines and
    avionics was considered, but that would leave new equipment in a 30-
    year-old+ airframe. 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.
        A recent study by the Center for Naval Analyses recommends three
    additional C-40A be procured to meet global operational requirements
    and replace the C-9.
                Littoral Surveillance System
        Two Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) have been authorized by
    congress by fiscal year 2003. This provides timely assured receipt of
    all-weather, day/night maritime and littoral intelligence, surveillance
    and reconnaissance data. A third system would be used to support the
    Navy and would be an ideal mission to support Naval and Coast Guard
    Maritime Defense operations, when not deployed. The LSS system has been
    incorporated into the Joint Fires Network (JFN) and the cost for this
    new system is $2.0 million per set.
        JFN provides near real time intelligence correlation, sensor
    control and planning, target generation, precise target coordinates,
    moving target tracks and battle damage assessment capabilities to
    support more timely engagement of time critical targets. This
    capability allows a ship with the full JFN suite to share a greatly
    improved battlespace picture very quickly with other ships in the area
    of operations.
        The system, along with the Army's Tactical Exploitation System-
    Forward and the Marines Tactical Exploitation Group, share a common
    software baseline, ensuring joint interoperability.
        At least 141 Reservists have been trained to run the two systems,
    which is viewed as a Naval Reserve mission.
    Air Force Reserve
                C-5s
        C-5s are unique national assets that are unrivaled in range and
    payload. Air Force and industry studies confirm the viability of the C-
    5 fleet (As and Bs) to serve until approximately 2040. These
    assessments resulted in the Air Force initiating a two-phased
    modernization program designed to improve C-5 reliability,
    maintainability, and availability. Modernization of C-5As assigned to
    the Air Force Reserve should be advanced concurrently with Air Force
    active duty units to include both the Avionics Modernization Program
    (AMP) and the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP).
    C-5 modernization is the most cost effective solution for generating
    strategic airlift.
        Requirement.--ROA urges Congress to authorize and appropriate funds
    to modernize C-5As with AMP and RERP concurrent with active duty C-5Bs.
                C-17
        The C-17 Globemaster III is the newest, most flexible cargo
    aircraft to enter the airlift force. The C-17 is capable of rapid
    strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating
    bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. The aircraft
    is also capable of performing tactical airlift and airdrop missions
    when required. The C-17 is the Nation's lowest risk program to increase
    capability.
        Requirement.--Commitment needed beyond 180 in January 2006 due to
    long lead items. Additionally, consideration for procurement beyond 180
    aircraft will support C-17s in the AFR and will increase the Nation's
    surge capability.
                C-40C
        Air Mobility Command's programmed force structure, based on C-9
    retirement schedule, does not include more then three C-40s for the AFR
    even though a hearing before Congress by the Air Force stated the
    demand for airlift was more then the availability of aircraft. For
    instance, the appropriate number of Operational Support Aircraft (OSA)
    does not exist to sufficiently meet increasing Congressional
    Delegation, Combatant Commander, or team travel requests. Operations
    and Maintenance are unfunded in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007
    for C-9s and C-40Cs.
        Requirement.--Increase procurement of C-40 aircraft by at least six
    additional aircraft to ensure an adequate special mission airlift force
    for the AFR by at least two C-40s per year for 3 years.
                C-130J
        AFRC C-130E aircraft are reaching the end of their economic service
    life, are becoming difficult to support, and must soon be replaced. The
    Air Mobility Command has selected the C-130J to replace these 40+ year
    old aircraft for both active, Reserve, and Guard C-130E units. The C-
    130J is the latest version of the venerable C-130 Hercules and utilizes
    advanced composite materials, integrated digital avionics and a state-
    of-the-propulsion system to provide significant performance
    improvements, new mission capabilities, and reduced life cycle costs.
    The recently executed C/KC-130J Multiyear Contract provides these
    aircraft at significant cost savings to the government while
    accelerating deliveries to units currently in conversion such as the
    53rd Wing at Keesler AFB, MS.
        Requirement.--ROA urges Congress to authorize and appropriate funds
    for the C/KC-130J Multiyear Procurement as requested in the President's
    Budget Request for fiscal year 2006.
                Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures System (LAIRCM)
        The AN/AAQ-24 V (13) LAIRCM is an infrared countermeasure system
    designed to protect both fixed and rotary wing aircraft against man-
    portable (shoulder-launched) infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles.
        Requirement.--HC-130/C-130H3, $225.1 million.
                LITENING AT Advanced Targeting Pod
        Precision Attack Targeting System program was developed to fill the
    need for precision strike capability in the Air Reserve Component
    (ARC). The 25 pods will be used in AFRC A/OA-10 and B-52 aircraft.
        Requirement.--A/OA-10 and B-52, 25 pods, $53.0 million.
                APN-241 Low Power Color Radar for C-130s
        The AN/APN-241 combat aerial delivery radar provides enhanced
    safety and operational performance for C-130 aircrews. It offers the
    tanker/transport community some of the same advanced technologies
    originally developed for fighter aircraft. These technologies include
    high-resolution ground-mapping modes that enable very precise
    navigational fixes and aerial cargo drops.
        Requirement.--C-130H2, $37 million.
                C-5A Airlift Defensive Systems
        The Air Force Reserve Command has a total of 32 C-5A aircraft in
    its inventory. Currently, that aircraft has no viable onboard defensive
    system against surface to air (SAM) missiles. Funds to pay for the Part
    A and B installation of AN-AAR-47 and ALE-47 defensive systems stripped
    from C-141 aircraft as these systems become available to the SPO.
        Requirement.--C-5A 32 A/C $30.0 million.
                Situational Awareness Data Link for A-10s and HH-60s
        The Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL) integrates U.S. Air Force
    close air support aircraft with the digitized battlefield via the U.S.
    Army's Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS). More than
    just a radio or a data modem, SADL provides fighter-to-fighter, air-to-
    ground and ground-to-air data communications that are robust, secure,
    jam-resistant and contention-free. With its inherent position and
    status reporting for situation awareness, SADL provides an effective
    solution to the long-standing air-to-ground combat identification
    problem for preventing unintentional fratricide (http://
    www.raytheon.com/products/sadl_eplrs/).
        Requirement.--A/OA-10 and HH-60, $7.7 million.

                               MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Recruiting and Retention
                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. The Army
    Reserve will organize its units into ``force packages'' that will help
    ensure that Reserve Component Soldiers will be available for 1 year out
    of every 5 to 6 years. This predictability will ease the pressure on
    soldiers, their families, and their employers.
        According to the Army Public Affairs announcement, May 3, 2005,
    ``As of end of the April reporting period, Recruiting Command accessed
    7,283 Soldiers for the U.S. Army Reserve, 79 percent of the year-to-
    date mission. The fiscal year 2005 Army Reserve recruiting mission is
    22,175.'' For the month of April the command fell short by 37 percent.
    The bonus program from last year helped to reduce recruitment and
    retention losses but with all other conditions remaining the same both
    areas will still be below goals. To overcome this, the Army Reserve
    needs to fully fund their bonus program to $149.5 million and increase
    AGR recruiter positions with funding to $59.1 million.
                Navy Reserve
        There are several challenges facing the services with recruiting
    and retention. The Naval Reserve recruiting is softer than many of the
    Navy's leadership would like to admit. The USNR has been slow to
    implement recruiting bonuses and the result is that the USNR is behind
    the power curve when compared to the other services with recruiting
    incentives for prior service members. The combined recruiting command
    has falling short of USN and USNR goals, and its Reserves are receiving
    short shrift for recruiting priorities. Even though the Navy is
    supporting deep cuts for its Naval Reserve (10,300 in fiscal year 2006)
    the need to recruit for the USNR has not lessened. To meet its
    shortcomings, the USNR is turning to activating drilling Reservists to
    fill the recruiter gap. When a problem exists, you call up the
    Reserves.
                Air Force Reserve
        Prior Service Availability.--In a 10-year period the Air Force
    Reserve went from accessing 50,507 in 1992 to 14,950 in 2005 and this
    trend has continued for the past 3 years. All of the services are
    experiencing this trend as the Guard and Reserve have gradually shifted
    to an operational force. The significance of recruiting fewer prior
    service personnel is lower average levels of experience residing in the
    Reserve Components and loss of investment in specialty training.
    According to the Air Force Reserve the most frequent reasons ADAF
    separatees give for not joining AFRC are:
      --Want to wait and see what happens (with world events);
      --Have seen Reservists deployed and don't want to risk same;
      --Done my time, not interested in continuing;
      --Have been told Reservists are first to be deployed;
      --Concerned Reserve status will negative impact civilian employment;
      --Negative feedback from activated IMAs;
      --Bad press coverage--impression active forces place Reservists &
            Guardsman on front lines.
        Recruiting Non-Prior Service Personnel.--A decrease in prior
    service means an increase in the need for non-prior service personnel
    to meet recruiting goals. A corresponding increase in the need for
    training dollars results at a time when the administration wants to
    decrease budgets. The use of non-prior service also results in less
    availability of forces as they move through the training pipeline. Once
    formal professional military education is completed training continues
    in a member's specialty, which means it can take between 1 to 2 years
    before an individual can perform duty somewhat independently.
        ROA recommends supporting bonus incentives and reverse cost
    avoidance reduction trends that cut the reserve personnel and
    technician accounts.
    Mobilization/Demobilization Impacts to Recruiting and Retention
        The impact of mobilization and demobilization does not rest just
    with the military member; it also affects their families and employers.
    This is important to note because they in turn factor in an individuals
    decision on whether or not to stay in the military.
        Two of the biggest problem areas that ROA members continue to share
    information on are with medical and pay problems.
          Comment: I am a mob'd reserve COL at Walter Reed with PTSD. The
            problem I see that Reservists and Guardsmen are seeing is that
            the burden of proof for absence of preexisting is on us. I have
            seen soldiers with severe PTSD (suicidal/homicidal) be valued
            by the board here at Walter Reed with 0 percent because they
            concluded he was bipolar when he entered service, never mind
            the war exacerbating the condition. I am seeing extremely low
            valuations of disabilities for loss of limb and other traumatic
            wounds.
          Comment: Here's the issue in a nutshell: Soldiers, according to
            the Army Reserve Magazine, are eligible for Tricare benefits 90
            days prior to mobilization. We have a group order from First
            Army. When soldiers call Tricare they are told that they cannot
            be enrolled in Tricare without an individual order. Soldiers
            are eligible for this insurance but cannot get it. Individual
            orders will not come until soldiers arrive at the Mobilization
            station. Basically, we're eligible, but there is no vehicle to
            provide this insurance. One example, our new officer's wife may
            be pregnant. (the 2LT type) They currently have no medical
            coverage. He is covered while on 29 day orders, but his wife
            has no coverage. According to the AR Magazine, he should be
            covered. This is a wonderful benefit, but de facto nothing has
            changed since individual orders, which are required to get
            coverage, don't come until the active duty period commences.
          Comment: Just wanted you to know that DEERS has dropped my family
            from Tricare dental for the 4th or 5th time.
          Comment: Well, today is Day 12 of 12 in a row, with a 3-day
            weekend ahead to recover. Of note, however--and I really hate
            to continue to bring up pay issues, but I (and hundreds of
            other recently demobilized reservists) have not been paid out
            accrued pay--and it's been over 3 months now. SOMEONE has to do
            something to force DFAS to pay us . . . but who? I'm convinced
            no one cares or they simply can't fight the bureaucracy. I am
            owed over $6,000 (after taxes) . . . the issues with DFAS
            continue--that organization needs to be seriously investigated
            and heads need to roll! I will have to take out a loan rather
            than pay with the cash that I earned--how sad is that?
          Comment: I just wanted to touch base with you prior to leaving
            active duty. I wanted to check on the status of any potential
            article that was being written and also any help from the ROA
            regarding the way that reservists (especially Army reservists)
            have been treated with regard to reimbursements and pay. Since
            October 1, I have been receiving only one-third of my normal
            paycheck. Fortunately, I will be demobilizing on November 9,/
            2004. Regardless, a large portion of any article written MUST
            include how DFAS (Indianapolis office) made multiple errors
            and, yet, reservists (and their families) are paying for their
            mistakes daily
          Comment: In late September I received a letter from DFAS stating
            that I had received per diem in error and now owed the
            government $11,696. I contacted an individual at DFAS and he
            said that the Army had decided to use DOD Directive 4515.14 as
            a guide to determine payment of per diem for soldiers in the
            Washington, DC area. He also told me that there were lots of
            other soldiers in the same situation and everyone had been
            assessed with a debt for travel advances paid. I asked what
            could be done and he said that he will submit a request for
            waiver of debt for me to DFAS Denver. A few months later we
            learned that DFAS Denver had denied waivers close to 900
            soldiers in this situation. We attempted to find out from DFAS
            Denver how to file an appeal of their decision to the Defense
            Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) and received no help.
            October 1, I checked my bank account and discovered that my
            direct deposit was only $548, I quickly determined that amount
            to be approximately one-third of my usual deposit and guessed
            that DFAS had decided to collect on the debt in the punitive
            manner of two-thirds confiscation. With no warning from DFAS or
            the Army that this was about to occur I was placed immediately
            in a dire financial situation. I sought help from Army
            Community Services by applying for a no interest loan from Army
            Emergency Relief only to be denied a loan because I only had 35
            days left on active duty, which would not guarantee loan
            repayment.
    Force Shaping
        The U.S. Naval Reserve has become a test bed for Active and Reserve
    Integration (ARI) and Zero Based Review (ZBR). While these two policies
    make for good endorsements on transformation, the impact of these
    policies will have a negative impact on retention. The bottom line of
    these new policies has been a recommendation within the Presidential
    Budget of a cut of 10,300 to the USNR in fiscal year 2006. Many within
    the Naval Reserve question the validity of these recommendations. The
    near term plan for the USNR is to force shape to Army support; which
    isn't necessarily preparing the force for the next at sea battle.
        The force being fashioned by Iraq is a USNR made up of SeaBee's,
    security forces, port security, custom agents and intelligence. This
    will be a more junior force. While the gain may be less in pay and
    compensation; the cost will be to experience and skill sets.
        The Zero Based Review (ZBR) which has recommend cutting the Naval
    Reserve from and end-strength of 84,300 to about 64,000 members did not
    include all of the roles, missions and demands for Reservists. Among
    the roles left out of this calculation were joint, and homeland
    security requirements. Yet Congress is being asked to cut the USNR to
    70,000.
        To reverse a growing trend ROA recommends:
      --Slow down and reduce the cuts planned for fiscal year 2006; at a
            minimum the cut of 10,300 should be spread out over 4 to 5
            years.
      --Determine what future roles the USNR will be supporting which could
            lead to increases in end-strength, and;
      --Redo the USNR Zero Based Review to include joint and homeland
            defense requirements. This ZBR should be ongoing rather than
            periodic.

                                   CONCLUSION

        DOD, as we all know, is in the middle of executing a war--the
    Global War on Terrorism and operations in Iraq are directly associated
    with that effort. For the Department, worries have emerged about
    additional spending during these military actions. Almost every
    initiative to include proposed changes to personnel practices and
    improvements in compensation programs are quickly placed under a ``what
    will it cost?'' scrutiny. It is ROA's view that this scrutiny is too
    often oriented toward immediate costs with a lack of appropriate regard
    for long-term results versus life cycle costs. This is not to say that
    prudent, fiscal personnel and budget policies and processes should be
    ignored. At all times what is being achieved should respectfully be
    balanced with how something is being achieved.
        From a positive aspect, DOD's work to change and transform is
    admirable. Although many issues effecting Reservists are difficult and
    complex, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and
    Human Services have all accomplished much in streamlining and updating
    mobilization and demobilization and in working health care challenges
    of wounded military members. There are still areas that need scrutiny
    such a depot support and regeneration costs for equipment and training.
    The war on terrorism is our Nation's first threat and this threat will
    not go away. The Reserve Components will take part in countering this
    threat for many years to come which offers us the best opportunity to
    resolve these issues once and for all.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Ms. Lukas. I am sure
    you realize that this base closure process we are going through
    is to free up money to modernize some of that equipment, just
    as you indicated. We do have a vast need for improved trucks
    and improved vehicles. We are sending the Strykers over there
    so that they can drive them 65 miles an hour and still be safe.
    But there are not enough of them over there yet.
        But I thank you very much for your testimony and hope you
    will be pleased with the results.
        Ms. Lukas. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Next is Command Master Sergeant Retired Mark Olanoff,
    Retired Enlisted Association. Yes, sir. Nice to see you again,
    sir.

    STATEMENT OF COMMAND MASTER SERGEANT MARK H. OLANOFF,
                U.S. AIR FORCE (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE
                DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
        Sergeant Olanoff. Good to see you again, sir, Mr. Chairman.
        First I would like to start and thank you and Senator
    Inouye for everything you have done for us, because, you know,
    over the years we have come to see you and talked about issues
    that really are not within your purview, like concurrent
    receipt and survivor benefit offsets and health care for those
    over 65, which is now TRICARE for Life.
        You told us at one hearing, you might remember, a few years
    ago that we had to go to the authorizing committee to fix those
    problems, and we did that. Here is the debate that happened in
    the fiscal year 2001 conference report, in which virtually
    every Senator who spoke supported the improvements for health
    care. I just want to read a couple points that Senator Warner
    had to say.
        He said that: ``I turn now to what is the most important
    single item in this conference report, military health care,
    particularly for our retired personnel and their families.
    History shows they are the best recruiters of all.''
        In another part of the record he says: ``Two weeks ago in
    the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and
    the House Armed Services Committee, General Hugh Shelton,
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the service
    chiefs strongly supported making this benefit permanent and
    using the accrual amount method of financing. The Joint Chiefs
    have repeatedly testified that failing to honor the commitment
    to our retirees has been detrimental to their recruiting and
    retention efforts.''
        Yet today we see op-ed pieces put out by the Pentagon that
    now say that military retirees are a drain on the active duty
    force and the Reserve component. This is far from the truth. As
    you know, Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee appropriates money
    for discretionary funding. We won the battle on TRICARE for
    Life through the Armed Services Committee, not here. We won the
    battle on concurrent receipt through the authorizers and it was
    paid for through the Treasury, not from the Defense Department.
    The survivor benefit correction that was done in last year's
    defense bill was offset by crazy accounting the way they do
    things here, but there was an offset of mandatory funding. We
    did not buy tankers that we were going to buy.
        So for the Pentagon to now say that we are a drain on their
    budget is totally unfair. The last point, Mr. Chairman, is I
    did some checking to find out why the Pentagon does not talk
    about civilian retirees, why they are not a drain on their
    budget. There is a good reason. I found out that the health
    care--72 percent that the Government funds for retirees of the
    civil service--is funded through the Office of Personnel
    Management (OPM) budget, which means there is no accrual
    accounting like there is for TRICARE for Life.
        So I believe that we have an obligation to fund military
    health care for military retirees who have earned their
    benefits. Again, I would like to thank you very much for
    everything that you have done to help us over the years.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        I was just talking about looking into that. We will look
    into that.
        Sergeant Olanoff. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. We appreciate it.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Mark H. Olanoff

        Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for The Retired Enlisted Association
    to testify on our concerns for military and veterans' before your
    committee.
        The Retired Enlisted Association is a Veterans' Service
    Organization founded 42 years ago to represent the needs and points of
    view of enlisted men and women who have dedicated their careers to
    serving in all the branches of the United States Armed Services active
    duty, National Guard and Reserves, as well as the members who are doing
    so today.

           FUNDING FOR ACTIVE DUTY, NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

        The Retired Enlisted Association generally supports the
    administration's request to support today's troops and looks forward to
    working with the committee to that end. TREA is working on issues with
    the Senate Armed Services Committee to improve the quality of life for
    all components, retirees and their survivors.

                                DOD HEALTH CARE

        I would like to start with a statement made by Senator John Warner
    (Virginia), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the
    debate on the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act
    concerning the Healthcare provisions:

        ``I turn now to what is one of the most important single item in
    this conference report--military healthcare, particularly for our
    retired personnel and their families. History shows they are the best
    recruiters of all.''

        The conference report before the Senate fulfills an important
    commitment of ``healthcare for life'' made by the recruiters--the U.S.
    Government--beginning in World War II and continuing through the Korean
    war and the Viet Nam war. The goal of making that commitment was to
    encourage service members to remain in uniform and become careerists.
    Simply put, a commitment of health care for life in exchange for their
    dedicated career service.
        Again, this convergence report fulfills the promise of healthcare
    for life. I am proud of the bipartisan unanimity with which the Senate
    Armed Services Committee supported this initiative--an initiative never
    taken before by a congressional committee.
        Let me describe for my colleagues and for our active and retired
    service members around the world the legislation in this conference
    report to authorize health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military
    retirees and their families, and how we arrived at this outcome.
        For as long as I can remember, military recruits and those facing
    re-enlistment have been told that one of the basic benefits of serving
    a full military career is health care for life. We all know now that
    this commonly offered incentive was not based in statute, but was,
    nonetheless, freely and frequently made; it is a commitment that we
    must honor.
        Let me briefly review the history of military health care. Military
    medical care requirements for activity duty service members and their
    families were recognized as early as the 1700's. Congressional action
    in the last 1800's directed military medical officers to attend to
    military families whenever possible, at no cost to the family. During
    World War II, with so many service members on activity duty, the
    military medical system could not handle the health care requirements
    of family members. The Emergency Maternal and Infant Care Program was
    authorized by Congress to meet this road. This program was administered
    through state health agencies.
        The earliest reference in statute defining the health care benefit
    for military retirees was in 1956 when, for the first time, the
    Dependent's Medical Care Act specified that military retirees were
    eligible for health care in military facilities on a space-available
    basis. In 1966, this Act was amended to create the Civilian Health and
    Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, to supplement the
    care provided in military facilities. This legislation, in 1966,
    specifically excluded from coverage military retirees who were eligible
    for Medicare--a program which had been enacted by the Congress 1 year
    earlier, in 1965.
        The exclusion of over age 65, Medicare-eligible military retirees
    from guaranteed care from the military health care system was masked
    for many years because the capacity of military hospitals an the
    military medical system exceeded that required to care for active duty
    service members; therefore, many Medicare-eligible retirees were able
    to receive treatment, on a space-available basis, at military
    facilities. In the 1990's, we began to reduce the size of our military
    services and the base realignment and closure, BRAC, rounds began to
    close bases--and military hospitals--all across the Nation. The
    combined effect of fewer military medical personnel to provide care and
    the closure of over 30 percent of the military hospitals eliminated the
    excess capacity that had been so beneficial to military retirees. Also
    during this decade the retiree population grew dramatically, adding
    pressure to the military health care system. The true magnitude of the
    problem was finally exposed.
        All of us have heard from military retirees who served a full
    career and, in so doing, made many sacrifices. Many times the
    sacrifices these heroic veterans made resulted in serious medical
    conditions that manifested themselves at the time in their lives when
    they were pushed out of the military health care system. As a nation,
    we promised these dedicated retirees health care for life, but we were
    ignoring that promise.
        On February 23, 2000, I introduced a bill, S. 2087, that provided
    for access to mail order pharmaceuticals for ALL Medicare-eligible
    military retirees, for the first time. The legislation also would
    improve access to benefits under TRICARE and extend and improve certain
    demonstration programs under the Defense Health Program.
        On May 1, 2000, I introduced S. 2486, which added a retail pharmacy
    component to the previous legislation, providing for a full pharmacy
    benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare.
        On June 6, Senator Tim Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2669, a bill
    that would extend TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and
    their families, regardless of age. Later that same day, I amended the
    defense authorization bill to add the text of S. 2669. This legislation
    provided uninterrupted access to the Military Health Care System, known
    as TRICARE, to all retirees.
        Permanently funding the military retiree health care benefit will
    be seen by retirees, active duty service members and potential recruits
    as the Nation keeping its commitment of health care for life to
    military retirees. Those serving today and those who are joining the
    military will see that the promise of a lifetime of health care, in
    return for serving a full career, will be honored in perpetuity.
        Two weeks ago, in testimony before both the Senate Armed Services
    Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, General Hugh Shelton,
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the service chiefs
    strongly supported making this benefit permanent and using the accrual
    account method of financing. The Joint Chiefs have repeatedly testified
    that failing to honor the commitment to our retirees has been
    detrimental to their recruiting and retention efforts.''
        TREA is very concerned with recent articles in national newspapers
    that the Department of Defense is worried that costs for military
    retiree benefits are taking funds away from the troops. These
    statements are not accurate.
        TREA urges the subcommittee to fully fund DOD's health care account
    to include a seamless transition with the Department of Veterans'
    Affairs. Further, TREA recommends report language that specifically
    prohibits the Department of Defense from raising TRICARE co-payments in
    fiscal year 2006. Finally, TREA recommends an oversight hearing with
    the Department of Defense and stakeholders to discuss differences
    between entitlement and discretionary spending.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        TREA realizes that this subcommittee has very little to do with the
    BRAC process, however, section 726 of the fiscal year 2004, National
    Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-136) states ``Working group
    on military health care for persons reliant on health care facilities
    at military installations to be closed or realigned''. Although this
    working group has been established by DOD and the group has had one
    meeting, this issue will become very important after the BRAC list is
    finalized.
        TREA urges the subcommittee to be aware of this issue when
    appropriations are made to fund BRAC.

                                   CONCLUSION

        TREA 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 many years of support to
    the defense of our country.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Retired Captain
    Marshall Hanson, Chairman of the Association for America's
    Defense. Yes, sir.

    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, U.S. NAVAL
                RESERVE (RETIRED), CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATIONS
                FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE
        Captain Hanson. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, the
    Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) are very grateful to
    testify today on issues of national defense equipment and force
    structure. We would like to thank this subcommittee for its
    stewardship on defense issues and setting the example by its
    nonpartisan leadership.
        Support for our deployed troops continues to be a priority
    and warrants top importance. The Reserve Enlisted Association,
    which belongs to A4AD, had one of its members mobilized by the
    marines who is currently in Iraq. When asked about up-armoring
    of vehicles in country, I got an answer from this sergeant by
    e-mail just yesterday that I would like to share with the
    subcommittee. He said:
        ``Sometimes I see soldiers going out in home-armored
    vehicles. We call them grenade buckets. Our teams have two
    vehicles and one of them is a bucket, though this week we will
    be getting it refurbished. They are going to take off the
    homemade armor and add higher sides, higher back gate,
    generation three armor doors, and armor the cab's canvas roof.
    Unfortunately, I was told that we will still need to add the
    Kevlar blast pads on the rear wheel wells because the armor
    does not protect the troops that sit in the back. Another
    problem is that these pads can catch fire.
        ``The insurgents have started using antitank mines, which
    have killed about four soldiers in the next area of operation.
    We had a first sergeant here who may lose his leg. We cannot
    really armor a Hummer enough to stop these mines. We do the
    best we can with the armor and use our intel, tactics, and
    procedures to stop the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
    car bomb attacks.
        ``Overall, the main difficulty with the up-armoring is the
    logistics with getting the vehicle to the up-armor location.
    They expect us to take off the welded homemade armor without
    technical support and then there is the risk of driving the
    unprotected vehicle to the armoring sites. Both vehicles we use
    have some wear and tear and could use refurbishing. This is the
    standard around here, although the 7-ton truck and the light
    medium tactical vehicles (LMTV) are in good condition.'' End
    quote.
        A4AD is concerned about this wear and tear on fielded
    equipment and how our soldiers and marines who are returning
    from the combat theater without equipment because they must
    leave it behind. For the demobilized, readiness will become an
    issue because there is no equipment left to train on. Included
    in our written testimony is a list of unfunded equipment we
    would like to see procured for Active and Reserve components.
        It also should be remembered that equipment is only as good
    as the people who use it. We believe Congress must continue to
    make it a high priority to increase end strengths because this
    type of combat we are seeing is stressing our military troops.
    People are more than just human capital assets and if they are
    overtasked and undervalued we will see a growing recruiting and
    retention problem.
        Further, proposed cuts to some of our Guard, Reserve, and
    Active services may be sending out the wrong message to future
    adversaries and to our troops in the field. Increases should be
    made to both the Active and Reserve components as the
    Department of Defense (DOD) missions will continue beyond just
    the operational, to include strategic contingencies and
    homeland defense.
        We are at a point in our history where we are defending our
    national interests at the same time that we are defining our
    future security systems. Let us not overstep our capabilities
    at the risk of defense. The responsibilities that you bear
    toward the future are great and I am sure the opinions you are
    given are many.
        Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the armed
    services, and the fine young men and women who defend our
    country. I am available for any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Marshall Hanson

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the
    Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) are very grateful for the
    invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
    concerning current and future issues facing the defense appropriations.
        The Association for America's Defense is an adhoc group of 12
    military and veteran associations that have concerns about national
    security issues that are not normally addressed by The Military
    Coalition, and the National Military Veterans Alliance. Among the
    issues that are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure,
    and defense policy. Collectively, we represent about 2.5 million
    members, who are serving our Nation, or who have done so in the past.
    The number of supporters expands to beyond 5 million when you include
    family members and friends of the military.
        A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who
    provide input while not including their association name to the
    membership roster.

                  CURRENT VERSUS FUTURE; ISSUES FACING DEFENSE

        The Associations for America's Defense would like to thank this
    committee 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 sets the example.
        Members of this group are concerned that U.S. Defense policy is
    sacrificing future security for near term readiness. So focused are our
    efforts to provide security and stabilization in Iraq, that risk is
    being accepted as an element in future force planning.
        A Pentagon criticism is that our Armed Forces are archaic;
    structured for a Cold War. Instead, transformation is now being touted
    that would now emphasize ``boots on the ground,'' while at the same
    time it encourages technological improvements that would jump a
    generation of weapons. Yet force planning is being driven by the Global
    War on Terrorism, plans to democratize the Middle East, and to allow
    for budget limitations. Cuts are being suggested for legacy weapons and
    infrastructure to pay for current operations and future combat systems.
        What seems to be overlooked is that the United States is involved
    in a Cold War as well as a Hot war. While the United States is
    preoccupied with the Middle East and with the near-term crisis posed by
    North Korea's, China expands its influence over Africa, South America,
    and the underbelly of the former Soviet Union. It builds a military
    designed to counteract American military, and is erecting a Chinese
    stronghold of territorial claims and international lawfare.
        Our military leadership defends it policy with proud display,
    testifying to the fact that our aircraft, missiles and ships have a
    greater capability and effectiveness then ever in the past. Yet within
    the last decade, our picket lines of defense have been gapped several
    times to respond to distant crises. Platform numbers and location are
    as significant as accuracy and payload.
        China is the elephant in the war room that many force planners hope
    will just go away. As the United States expends resources in the Middle
    East and re-structures the military to fight terrorism, China patiently
    waits for America to weaken by withdrawing itself globally by
    transforming into a smaller force. China also awaits for another
    advantage which could be caused by the GWOT: the erosion of the
    American national will.
        The Pentagon has suggested that technology will keep us ahead. By
    reducing procurement of the next generation of systems that are already
    planned by the armed services, and by pouring money into future combat
    systems DOD claims that we will maintain a tactical advantage. The
    question asked by many within the A4AD, will our adversaries wait until
    we attain this future?

                            FORCE STRUCTURE CONCERNS

    Aging Equipment
        Tactical Air.--The rapidly aging F-15 Eagles first flew in the
    1970's. In recent mock combat against MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters,
    foreign air forces scored unexpected successes against the Eagles. What
    is characteristic of paradigm shifts in air superiority is that they
    are invariably driven by one or another technological advance. New air
    dominance platforms are urgently needed. The F/A-22 Raptor and the
    Joint Strike F-35 fighters represent vital and complementary
    capabilities.
        Airlift.--Hundreds of thousands of hours have been flown, and
    millions of passengers and tons of cargo have been airlifted. Both Air
    Force and Naval airframes and air crew are being stressed by these lift
    missions. Procurement needs to be accelerated and modernized, and
    mobility requirements need to be reported upon.
        Fleet Size.--The number of ships in the fleet is dropping. At the
    end of April, the Navy had 288 ships. The Chief of Naval Operations,
    Admiral Vern Clark, in testimony before Congress talked about a 260
    ship fleet by the year 2035.
        Under the 260-ship plan, ship purchases and spending would show a
    peak-and-valley pattern over the 2006-2035 period. Through 2015, the
    Navy would buy an average of 9.5 ships per year, at an annual cost of
    about $14.4 billion. The fleet would peak at 326 ships in 2020 and then
    gradually decline to 260 by 2035. The mid-to-late 2020's would be a
    period of low ship purchases under the 260-ship plan.
        As recently as 2003, the U.S. Navy was telling Congress that its
    long-term goal was a 375-ship Navy. According to Admiral Clark, the
    260-ship plan would cost about $12 billion a year for ship
    construction, and the 325-ship plan would cost about $15 billion a year
    for shipbuilding.
        The administration procurement rate is too low and has yet to even
    reach a 9.5 ships per year procurement rate to support a build-up
    toward 2020. It appears that the Navy won't even attain the numbers
    discussed by the CNO before Congress.
        Admiral Clark has accepted the DOD premise that technology can
    replace humans, and now seems to favor a smaller Navy because of lower
    cost and reduced manpower. He has also instituted new procedures like
    surging aircraft carriers to meet crises and keeping ships deployed
    overseas while rotating the crews. To some this means the Navy will
    need no more than 325 ships and possibly as few as 260. Yet this also
    means we will wear out people and equipment faster.
        A4AD favors a larger fleet because of an added flexibility to
    respond to emerging threats. It is also believes that Congress should
    explore options to current ship design, configuration, and shipbuilding
    methods which have created billion dollar destroyers.
    A Changing Manpower Structure
        Air Force.--Compared to the Cold War Air Force, today's USAF is
    small and based mostly in the United States, necessitating rapid,
    large-scale deployments over long distances. Over the last two decades,
    the active duty Air Force was reduced by nearly 40 percent--from
    608,000 to 359,000 uniformed members. Higher retention rates have
    caused the active duty force to expand temporarily to 375,000. Now the
    Air Force must shrink by some 16,000 Airmen in order to meet the fiscal
    year 2005 authorized force level of 359,000 people. While the force
    shrinks, operations tempo at stateside and overseas bases remains high.
    Airmen are working long hours, deploying with ever-increasing frequency
    to hot spots around the world, and spending more time away from their
    families. To accommodate the new steady state, service leaders have
    extended overseas rotations for each Air and Space Expeditionary Force
    (AEF), raising it from 90 days to 120 days. Combat deployments have
    been extended. Crews are flying longer missions and have less ground
    time between missions.
        Air Guard and Reserve.--Across the board, the Total Force is
    straining to meet new requirements and challenges. The Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve have been activated at unprecedented
    levels. Since September 11, 2001, the Air Force has mobilized nearly
    65,000 Guardsmen and Reservists. Together, they constitute 20 percent
    of Air Force AEF packages supporting operations in Southwest Asia.
    Additionally, they conduct 89 percent of air patrols over American
    cities in support of Operation Noble Eagle. In spite of enormous
    challenges, morale throughout the Total Force remains high. Senior Air
    Force leaders at present do not seek an increase in USAF end strength.
        A4AD cautions that if the level of operations continues at the
    current pace, a decision to request more manpower cannot be avoided.
    The bottom line is that resources must be matched to tasking.
        Army.--The Active Army is currently re-structuring all three
    components (Active, Reserve, Guard) in an attempt to create 77 Brigade
    Combat Teams and the necessary support organizations. To do this, the
    Army has a short-term increase in end strength of 30,000. Many in
    Congress feel that the increase should be permanent and possibly
    increased further.
        As part of its efforts to increase the number and deployability of
    the Army's combat brigades, the Pentagon has begun the Army's
    Modularity Program. The fiscal year 2006 request contains no funding
    for the program.
        Army Reserve.--The Army Reserve has a mandated end-strength of
    205,000. It is likely that they will not end the year within the 2
    percent variance authorized by Congress. It should be considered that
    part of the Active Army end-strength increase should be devoted to
    full-time support in the Army Reserve and Guard. This would enhance
    readiness as well as provide important mentoring to soldiers in
    anticipation of future deployments. At the present time, although
    retention in the Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard remains
    high, recruiting challenges continue. A4AD anticipates that there will
    be an increased need for monetary incentives in all components.
        Navy.--The official Navy posture is that its force level will
    reduce from approximately 360,000 sailors today to something in the
    neighborhood of 315,000 by the year 2012. A4AD has had an internal
    debate among its own membership on this manpower policy, some favor
    cuts, while others favor increases. Manpower is expensive, but it is
    people, not technology that have always won past battles and salvaged
    ships. If we tailor our fighting force too tightly with a level that is
    too low, we could create a force without indemnity.
        Naval Reserve.--New Navy policies have lead to a recommendation
    within the Presidential Budget of a cut of 10,300 to the USNR in fiscal
    year 2006. A4AD disagrees. At a time when the USN plans to cut the
    active force, these skillsets of these people should be placed into the
    Naval Reserve. Yet rather than increase the USNR as a hedge against
    policy, the Navy wants proportionally bigger cut from its Reserve.
        The Zero Based Review (ZBR) which has recommended cutting the Naval
    Reserve from an end-strength of 84,300 to about 64,000 members did not
    include all of the roles, missions and demands for Reservists. Among
    the missions not included in this review were joint, homeland security
    requirements, spec-ops and non-planned M-day demands. Aviation hardware
    units were also not included in the ZBR.
        Further, proposed civilianization of drilling Reserve and Full Time
    Staff billets do not address the call for war fighting skills and
    risks. A prime example is the Naval Reserve Construction Seabees
    Battalions, which were proposed for reduction prior to 9/11, are now
    touted as the USNR's best assets.
        At a minimum, the proposed USNR fiscal year 2006 cut needs to be
    spread over a number of years, and the Naval Reserve roles and missions
    needed to be examined.
        Marines.--As the Marine Corps is increased in size, the USMC wants
    to maintain the right number and mix of trained experienced Marines
    with first tour recruits. Ideally, 70 percent of the USMC is first
    tour, with the remaining 30 percent on extended service. With an
    expanded force, this ratio has been changing so that the number of
    first tour Marines is growing beyond the 70 percent. The Marine Corps
    will need to retain a greater number of individuals to offset new
    trainees with experienced leadership. Gradual increases need to be
    implemented to maintain the ratio of first tour to experienced Marine.
        Marine Forces Reserve.--With a similar ratio as the Active
    component, historically 70 percent of the USMCR force has been non-
    prior service. But this ratio has now climbed past 74 percent which
    causes concern. Retention is also becoming a challenge which
    exasperates the non-prior service ratio. No immediate increase beyond
    500 additional would be recommended for the USMCR.
        Coast Guard Reserve.--The Coast Guard Selected Reserve has been
    held to 8,100 members by appropriation restriction, and no one in the
    Coast Guard leadership has been an advocate to ask for additional
    funding to even cover for the 10,000 billets that have been authorized
    by the Armed Services Committees.
        The 8,100 manning level is no higher than it was prior to the
    terrorist attacks on September 11. Yet, the number of missions for the
    Coast Guard Reserve has increased. Coastal maritime defense is
    considered by many to be the most important challenges facing the
    United States today. Two requirements based studies conducted since 9/
    11 recommended that the USCGR strength be increased to 17,353 and
    18,031 respectively. USCGR appropriations need to support authorization
    levels.
    Increasing End Strength
        The Army's fiscal year 2006 budget request does not include funding
    for its 30,000-troop increase, nor does the Marine Corps request
    include funding for a 3,000-troop increase. Total estimated cost for
    the additional forces is $3.5 billion.
        A4AD has continuing concerns about the mismatch between reducing
    active duty and reserve force strengths and the increasing mission
    requirements. While retention rates remains highs, the effects of the
    heightened OPTEMPO are beginning to have a measured impact. If the
    current Active Duty end strength was adequate, the demand for Reserve
    and Guard call-up would not be so urgent.
        End strengths need to be closely examined by both the House and
    Senate as a first step in addressing this situation.
    Regeneration/Resetting of Equipment
        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 remains the improvised explosive
    device or IED. As you know, these devices use simple electronic
    transmitters--like garage door openers, remote controls for toys or
    cell phones--to detonate a disguised explosive as a convoy or unit on
    patrol passes by. These devices are usually well concealed in ordinary
    roadside debris like tires or dead animals. One response of the
    Congress to this extraordinary threat to our ground forces has been to
    call for and fund the accelerated purchase and deployment of up-armored
    Humvees.
        A4AD would like to point out to the committee, however, that
    Humvees are not the only vehicle operated in theater and that the
    emphasis on up-armoring one type of vehicle has left others with little
    to no protection. For example, by up-armoring Humvees, we provide a
    greater degree of safety for troops escorting a convoy, but no
    additional protection for those troops driving the large supply trucks
    that are part of the same convoy. 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. The committee has already seen fit to support
    the deployment of these types of solutions through the reprogramming of
    $161 million in last years' supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan
    operations, but we believe that more remains to be done. We would
    encourage and request the committee to look at specifying that
    additional funds be made available for the purpose of 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 countermeasures to protect every unarmored personnel
    carrier now deployed in the battle space.
    Aircraft Survivability Equipment
        As for air crews, they 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. As an example of this threat, one need only look at
    the downing of a privately-operated helicopter as recently as 1 month
    ago. A4AD hopes that the committee will continue to support the
    purchase and deployment of warning and countermeasures systems for both
    fixed and 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.
        Continue to support the purchase and deployment of warning and
    countermeasures systems for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft across
    all of the services and insure that the latest and most advanced
    versions are available.
    Maintaining the National Guard and Equipment List
        Pressure continues within the Navy and the Coast Guard to combine
    various appropriations so that Reserve equipment accounts would be
    merged with that of the parent service.
        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
    to the Active Duty that it 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.)
                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
                Air Force Reserve
        C-9/C-40 Personnel Sustainment (O&M) Scott AFB--$40.8 million
        C-130/HC-130 Large Aircraft I/R Counter Measures--$225.1 million
        A-10 LITENING Advanced Targeting Pod Procurement--$53.0 million
        C-130 APN-241 Radar--$37.0 million
        Tactical Data Link for A-10/HH-60--$7.7 million
                Air Guard
        Accelerate C-17 Airlifter (8) add (7)--$180 million each
        Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicles
        E-8C Joint STARS Aircraft Re-engine
        Patient Decontamination Assemblages (20)--$3.4 million
        Bioenvironmental Assemblages (10)--$1.0 million
                Army
        The Army spent $62.4 billion on O&M in fiscal year 2004, is
    estimating O&M spending of $45.4 billion in fiscal year 2005, and is
    requesting only $31.8 billion in fiscal year 2006. If these figures are
    accurate, then Army O&M spending has declined by roughly 50 percent in
    the space of 2 years for a military that's the same size and actively
    engaged in combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions of
    the world.
                Army Reserve
        Light Medium Tactical Vehicles [LMTV] (600)--$92 million
        Medium Tactical Vehicles [MTV] (800)--$146 million
        Multi-Band Super High Frequency Terminal (10)--$30 million
        Truck, Cargo PLS 1010 and PLS Trailer (44/88)--$12.7/$4.8 million
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (279)--$21 million
                Army Guard
        Funding for Rapid Field Initiative, special equipment and
    protective garments. RFI is a kit of approximately 50 essential items
    that provide the most up-to-date equipment to Soldiers at war.
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV, short 13,265)
        Single Channel Ground Air Radio Sys. (SINCGARS, retire obsolete
    20,000 VRC-12)
        Night Vision Goggles (NVG, short 100,000)
                Marine Corps
        Mountain and Cold Weather Clothing Equipment--$24.9 million
        Modernization of Medical Allowance Lists--$19 million
        Shelters and Tents--$23.4 million
        Portable Tent Lighting--$8.5 million
        Tactical Radios (PRC-117 and 150)--$25 million
                Reserve Marine Corps
        Initial Issue equipment--$10 million
        Mountain and Cold Weather Clothing Equipment--$8.4 million
        Portable Tent Lighting--$3.5 million
        Shelters and Tents--$5.2 million
        Light Armored Vehicles (LAV -25, 48)--$104 million
                Navy
        Aircraft Survivability Equipment--(5) MH-53E, (18) H/MH-60, (37) P-
    3 AIP--$22.1 million
        Low Band Transmitter (Jammer) pods (11)--$16.4 million
        SH-60B/H Armed Helo Kits (28)--$58.3 million
        Expand Maritime Interdiction Outfitting--personal protection,
    secure comms & cargo access --$10.5 million
        Accelerate repair/replace theater small arms--$24.0 million
                Naval Reserve
        C-40 A Inter-theater Transport (2)--$135 million
        Littoral Surveillance System, LSS coastal defense (1)--$19 million
        Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Naval Coastal Warfare Tactical Vehicles
    and Support Equipment --$14.5 million
        EOD/NWC Small Arms--$36.8 million
        Funds for activation--Funds associated for Reservist mobilize for
    GWOT

                                   CONCLUSION

        A core of military and veteran associations is looking beyond
    personnel issues to the broader issues of National Defense. As a group,
    we will continue to meet in the future, and hope to provide your
    committee with our inputs.
        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 Stevens. We do not have any questions. He is right,
    of course, and the difficulty is we still have to find a way to
    build them that way to start with. The up-armoring is costing
    us too much money. We have to go back sometimes two or three
    times to get it right.
        We appreciate your testimony, though. We will continue to
    work with you on that.
        Captain Hanson. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. The next witness is Dr. Jennifer Vendemia
    of the American Psychological Association.

    STATEMENT OF JENNIFER VENDEMIA, Ph.D., ON BEHALF OF THE
                AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
        Dr. Vendemia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Jennifer
    Vendemia from the University of South Carolina Psychology
    Department and I am testifying today on behalf of the American
    Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional
    organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates.
        Although I am sure you are aware of the large number of
    psychologists providing clinical services to our military
    members here and abroad, you may be less familiar with the
    extraordinary range of research conducted by psychological
    scientists within the Department of Defense. Our behavioral
    researchers work on issues critical to national defense with
    support from the Army Research Institute and Army Research
    Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force
    Research Laboratory, and additional smaller human systems
    research programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Marine
    Corps, and the Special Operations Command.
        For example, my own brain imaging research, which received
    generous funding through this committee in fiscal year 2005,
    seeks to model the neurocognitive processes of lying in order
    to formulate new deception detection techniques using measures
    of specific brain activity. As a university researcher, I also
    collaborate with scientists conducting credibility assessment
    studies at the nearby DOD Polygraph Institute at Fort Jackson
    and the DOD Counterintelligence Field Activity here in
    Washington. Deception and its accurate detection is of course
    at the heart of counterintelligence work and the research
    collaborations with DOD are designed to bridge results from my
    investigations in basic psychophysiology to the more applied
    mission-specific science and technology work that supports
    counterintelligence activities. APA encourages the subcommittee
    to increase funding for these very small but critical research
    programs.
        In terms of the overall defense science and technology
    (S&T) account, the administration requested less in fiscal year
    2005 than the enacted fiscal year 2004 amount and congressional
    appropriators in turn provided a significant increase over both
    the budget request and the fiscal year 2004 level, for a total
    of $13.33 billion. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget
    request of $10.52 billion for DOD S&T has again fallen short of
    both the fiscal year 2005 budget request and the fiscal year
    2005 enacted level, representing a 21 percent decrease.
        As a member of the Coalition for National Security
    Research, APA recommends the DOD science and technology program
    be funded at a level of at least 3 percent of total DOD
    spending in fiscal year 2006 in order to maintain global
    superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.
        Total spending on behavioral and cognitive research, in
    other words human-centered research, within DOD has declined
    again in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. Specific
    human factors and manpower-personnel-training programs were cut
    in the Army. The Navy's applied programs in human systems and
    warfighter sustainment took substantial hits. Support for the
    Air Force's applied human effectiveness, crew systems, and
    personnel protection accounts were down in the President's
    budget request.
        We urge you to support the men and women on the front lines
    by reversing another round of dramatic detrimental cuts to the
    human-oriented research within the military laboratories and by
    increasing support to behavioral research programs within DOD
    activities related to credibility assessment and
    counterintelligence.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Jennifer Vendemia

        ``Conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity in
    which man's virtues of judgment, discipline and courage--the moral
    component of fighting power--will endure . . . It is difficult to
    imagine military operations that will not ultimately be determined
    through physical control of people, resources and terrain--by people .
    . . Implicit, is the enduring need for well-trained, well-equipped and
    adequately rewarded soldiers. New technologies will, however, pose
    significant challenges to the art of soldiering: they will increase the
    soldier's influence in the battlespace over far greater ranges, and
    herald radical changes in the conduct, structures, capability and ways
    of command. Information and communication technologies will increase
    his tempo and velocity of operation by enhancing support to his
    decision-making cycle. Systems should be designed to enable the soldier
    to cope with the considerable stress of continuous, 24-hour, high-tempo
    operations, facilitated by multi-spectral, all-weather sensors.
    However, technology will not substitute human intent or the decision of
    the commander. There will be a need to harness information-age
    technologies, such that data does not overcome wisdom in the
    battlespace, and that real leadership--that which makes men fight--will
    be amplified by new technology. Essential will be the need to adapt the
    selection, development and training of leaders and soldiers to ensure
    that they possess new skills and aptitudes to face these
    challenges.''--NATO RTO-TR-8, Land Operations in the Year 2020.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm Dr. Jennifer
    Vendemia from the University of South Carolina Psychology Department. 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.
        For example, my own brain imaging research, which received generous
    funding through this committee in fiscal year 2005, seeks to model the
    neurocognitive processes of lying in order to formulate new deception
    detection techniques using measures of specific brain activity. As a
    university researcher, I also collaborate with scientists conducting
    credibility assessment studies at the nearby DOD Polygraph Institute
    (DODPI) at Fort Jackson and the DOD Counterintelligence Field Activity
    (CIFA) here in Washington. Deception, and its detection, is of course
    at the heart of counterintelligence work, and the research
    collaborations with DOD are designed to bridge results from my
    investigations in basic psychophysiology to the more applied, mission-
    specific science and technology work that supports counterintelligence
    activities.
        I would like to address the fiscal year 2006 human-centered
    research budgets for the military laboratories and programs within the
    context of the larger DOD Science and Technology budget.

                       DOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET

        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2006 is $10.52 billion, a 21 percent decrease from
    the enacted fiscal year 2005 level and a decrease from the President's
    fiscal year 2005 budget request. 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 in
    support and dedicate at least 3 percent of total DOD spending to 6.1,
    6.2 and 6.3 level research in fiscal year 2006.
        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 2005, the administration requested $10.55 billion
    for defense S&T, less than the enacted amount in fiscal year 2004.
    Congressional appropriators in turn provided a significant increase
    over both the budget request and the fiscal year 2004 level, for a
    total of $13.33 billion. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget
    request of $10.52 billion for DOD S&T again fell short--of both the
    fiscal year 2005 budget request and the fiscal year 2005 enacted level
    (a 21 percent decrease).
        Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T
    programs on Capitol Hill, and within independent defense science
    organizations such as the Defense Science Board (DSB), total research
    within DOD has remained essentially flat in constant dollars over the
    last few decades. This poses a very real threat to America's ability to
    maintain its competitive edge at a time when we can least afford it.
    APA, CNSR and our colleagues within the science and defense communities
    recommend funding the DOD Science and Technology Program at a level of
    at least 3 percent of total DOD spending in fiscal year 2006 in order
    to maintain global superiority in an ever-changing national security
    environment.

              BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH WITHIN THE MILITARY SERVICE LABS

        In August, 2000 the Department of Defense met a congressional
    mandate to develop a Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on
    Behavioral, Cognitive and Social Science Research in the Military. The
    Senate requested this evaluation due to concern over the continuing
    erosion of DOD's support for research on individual and group
    performance, leadership, communication, human-machine interfaces, and
    decision-making. In responding to the committee's request, the
    Department found that ``the requirements for maintaining strong DOD
    support for behavioral, cognitive and social science research
    capability are compelling'' and that ``this area of military research
    has historically been extremely productive'' with ``particularly high''
    return on investment and ``high operational impact.''
        Despite the critical need for strong research in this area, the
    administration has proposed an fiscal year 2006 defense budget that
    again would slash funding for human-centered research. APA urges the
    committee to, at a minimum, restore proposed fiscal year 2006 cuts to
    the military lab behavioral research programs.
        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.
        Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role played by
    behavioral, cognitive and social science in national security, however,
    total spending on this research declined again in the President's
    fiscal year 2006 budget. Specific human factors and manpower/personnel/
    training programs within the applied 6.2 and 6.3 accounts were cut in
    the Army, and the Navy's applied 6.2 programs in human systems and
    warfighter sustainment took substantial cuts. Similarly, support for
    the Air Force's applied 6.2 and 6.3 level human effectiveness and crew
    systems and personnel protection accounts were down in the President's
    budget request.
        In addition, I know first-hand the value of supporting the smaller,
    but mission-critical, behavioral research programs within DOD,
    particularly those related to credibility assessment and detection of
    deception. APA encourages the committee to increase funding for these
    programs.
        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. One effort underway is designed to
    help the Army identify those soldiers who will be most successful
    meeting 21st century noncommissioned officer job demands, thus
    strengthening the backbone of the service--the NCO corps.
        Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive
    readiness under combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and
    mitigate the effects of stressors (such as information load and
    uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on
    performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming the
    Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more
    mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping
    maximize soldier performance through an understanding of cognitive,
    perceptual and social factors.
        ARL's Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and
    applied research in the area of human factors, with the goal of
    optimizing soldiers' interactions with Army systems. Specific
    behavioral research projects focus on the development of intelligent
    decision aids, control/display/workstation design, simulation and human
    modeling, and human control of automated systems.
    Office of Naval Research (ONR)
        The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports
    research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in
    humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision;
    improve human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the
    design of robotics systems. An example of 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.

                                    SUMMARY

        On behalf of APA, I would like to express my appreciation for this
    opportunity to present testimony before the subcommittee. Clearly,
    psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and
    problems vital to our national security, with expertise in
    understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual
    awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, and human-
    systems interactions. We urge you to support the men and women on the
    front lines by reversing another round of dramatic, detrimental cuts to
    the human-oriented research within the military laboratories, and by
    increasing support to behavioral research programs within DOD
    activities related to credibility assessment and counterintelligence.
        Below is suggested appropriations report language which would
    encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its behavioral
    research programs within the military laboratories:

                            ``Department of Defense
                ``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 I hate to leave sitting
    here, Dr. Polly. I will be right back. There is a vote. If you
    look back and see all those lights, that means that we are in
    the last part of the vote.
        Our next witness is Dr. David Polly, Professor and Chief of
    Spine Surgery at the University of Maryland, formerly of Walter
    Reed Hospital, an eminent surgeon who made it possible for me
    to walk straight up again.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID W. POLLY, JR., M.D., PROFESSOR OF
                ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND CHIEF OF SPINE
                SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, ON BEHALF
                OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC
                SURGEONS
        Dr. Polly. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Polly. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye: I thank you for
    this opportunity to testify today. I am Dr. David Polly,
    Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of
    Minnesota, and I speak on behalf of the American Academy of
    Orthopaedic Surgeons.
        I have personally cared for injured soldiers at Walter Reed
    during four different military conflicts and have been deployed
    to a war zone as an orthopaedic surgeon in the military. My
    last assignment was as Chair of the Department of Orthopaedic
    Surgery and Rehab at Walter Reed.
        I speak today in support of the proposal to establish an
    Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research Program at the U.S. Army
    Institute of Surgical Research (ISR) at Fort Sam Houston,
    Texas, to fund intramural and extramural orthopaedic trauma
    research. It is no surprise that approximately 70 percent of
    all the trauma out of Afghanistan and Iraq is extremity trauma
    and it is orthopaedic-related--upper extremity, lower
    extremity, as well as spine trauma. Body armor has done a
    remarkable job of protecting the soldier's torso, but his or
    her extremities are very vulnerable to attacks, especially with
    IEDs. Wounded soldiers who may have died in previous conflicts
    from their injuries are now surviving and have to recover from
    these devastating injuries.
        There are remarkable examples of injured soldiers
    overcoming all odds and returning to full function and even
    Active duty, including the recent return of Captain David
    Rozelle to duty in Iraq as the first amputee returning to a
    combat zone in this conflict.
        The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has worked
    closely with top military orthopaedic surgeons at war class
    facilities, including the Institute for Surgical Research,
    Brooke Army Medical Center, and Walter Reed, to identify gaps
    in orthopaedic trauma research, specifically the need for
    improved anti-microbial bone replacement, systems for rapid
    wound irrigation, cleaning and debridement, laboratory
    investigations of pathogenesis and treatment of persistent
    infections in orthopaedic trauma, and surgical and
    pharmacologic methods to treat direct multiple trauma.
        To ensure that sufficient research is being supported on
    orthopaedic musculoskeletal trauma, it is critical that a
    dedicated program be created within the DOD. Thus the
    establishment of this orthopaedic trauma research program at
    ISR.
        It is important to note that military orthopaedic surgeons,
    in addition to personnel at the U.S. Army Medical Research and
    Material Command at Fort Detrick, have had significant input
    into the creation of this proposal and fully support its goals.
        I commend Congress for its commitment to the amputee care
    funding, especially the establishment of the Amputee Center at
    Walter Reed, which is near and dear to my heart. Thank you,
    sir. But another goal must be to do everything possible to
    salvage wounded limbs in the first place so that a soldier
    ideally does not need the Amputee Care Center at all. An
    expanded Federal commitment to orthopaedic extremity trauma
    would move us closer to this goal.
        National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is directed at
    problems facing the U.S. population as a whole. This type of
    war extremity trauma is unique to DOD and not highly
    prioritized within the NIH. With over 70 percent of military
    trauma being orthopaedic-related, orthopaedic extremity trauma
    research clearly would be of great benefits to the sons and
    daughters of America serving in the global war on terror and in
    future conflicts.
        On behalf of America's soldiers, military orthopaedic
    surgeons in every branch of the service, and the American
    Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, I respectfully request that
    this subcommittee establish and fund the Orthopaedic Trauma
    Research Program to be administered at the U.S. Army Institute
    of Surgical Research.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        [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., MD., and I speak today
    on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 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 was an airborne ranger serving 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
    24\1/2\ years of service. I am currently Professor of Orthopaedic
    Surgery and Chief of Spine Surgery at the University of Minnesota.
        I would like to cover several topics today. First, I would like to
    discuss the common types of orthopaedic trauma seen out of Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Second, I will comment on the current state of orthopaedic
    trauma research. Third, I would like to offer a military perspective,
    as laid out yearly in extensive research priorities documents, of the
    direction in which orthopaedic research should head in order to better
    care for soldiers afflicted with orthopaedic trauma. Finally, I would
    like to encourage subcommittee members to consider favorably a proposal
    to create a peer-reviewed grant program, administered by the U.S. Army
    Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR), to fund intramural and
    extramural orthopaedic trauma research.

             ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA FROM OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)

        The Armed Forces are attempting to recover significantly injured
    soldiers to return them to full function or by limiting 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 and continuing 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 approximately 70 percent of
    trauma seen out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in previous
    conflicts, is orthopaedic-related, especially upper and lower extremity
    and spine. For example, during the USNS Comfort's 6-month deployment,
    surgeons on board performed 498 orthopaedic-related procedures
    accounting for almost 85 percent of the total surgical procedures
    performed. Of the 210 injured soldiers who have returned to Tripler
    Army Medical Center in Honolulu, 70 percent have had orthopaedic
    injuries. For the 447th Mobile Forward Surgical Team (FST) stationed in
    Baghdad, the extent of orthopaedic injuries has been even greater with
    89 percent of the injuries requiring orthopaedic stabilization.
        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. The vast majority of the orthopaedic
    injuries seen are to the upper and lower extremities. 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. These can be devastating,
    potentially mortal injuries (``Casualties of War--Military Care for the
    Wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan,'' NEJM, December 9, 2004).
        The trauma seen thus far is usually inflicted from close proximity
    and is most often a result of blast devices, such as improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) and mortars. 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.
    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.

          THE CURRENT AND FUTURE STATE OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA RESEARCH

        Since the Vietnam War there have been advances in medical science,
    both on the civilian and the military side. One example is with
    microvascular surgery, which is when reconstructive procedures are
    performed to try to save limbs by putting blood vessels back together
    again, providing definitive wound coverage of severe open wounds to get
    vital structures covered, such as bone, nerves, and tendons. This means
    taking tissue from one part of the body and moving it to another part
    of the body and sewing in blood vessels with the use of a microscope.
    This allows the surgeon to wash, clean, debride and cover severe open
    contaminated wounds with some type of definitive coverage
        At the annual meeting of the Advanced Technology Applications for
    Combat Casualty Care (ATACCC), medical research priorities are laid out
    for military research facilities and programs. Many of the priorities
    expand on research that is currently underway at facilities such as the
    U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) and Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center (WRAMC). I would like to provide you details of some of
    the research that is already underway and the outlook for these medical
    research advances.
    Anti-microbial Bone-replacement Material
        High-energy wounds on the battlefield produce contaminated wounds
    with bone loss. The goal is to develop a product that can be placed
    into an open fracture after initial debridement at far forward medical
    treatment units. The product will deliver a time-release dose of
    antibiotic into the wound as well as promote bone growth. Evaluation of
    various materials has been conducted in animal models to determine the
    best product for treating highly contaminated injuries. Future work
    focuses on accelerating healing in larger defects, as well as
    evaluation of antimicrobial bone replacement materials in humans.
    Improved Long Bone Splint/cast
        The current materials employed to splint injured limbs on the
    battlefield do not provide optimal support of the injured limb and are
    too bulky to be carried by the medic along with other required medical
    supplies. The goal is to develop a smaller and lighter weight splint/
    cast system that can be molded to the injured limb providing adequate
    structural support. Research is currently underway on a self-contained
    splint that can be molded to an injured extremity like a fiberglass or
    plaster splint without the requirement of external water and extra
    padding that fiberglass and plaster splinting requires.
    System for Rapid Wound Irrigation and Cleaning
        Decontamination for prevention of infection in open fractures is
    essential in caring for battlefield extremity injuries. Development of
    strategies for decontamination in the far forward environment includes
    pulsatile irrigation with antimicrobial irrigation solutions. The goal
    is to identify an antimicrobial irrigation solution that produces
    optimal decontamination of open fractures. Activity against organisms
    that are unusual in the United States but have been common and
    problematic in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are being considered.
    Characteristics of the contaminated wound, such as bacterial biofilm
    formation and its effect on the ability to decontaminate, are also
    being explored. Research is currently being conducted in an animal
    model.
    Temporary Skin Substitute
        Prevention of contamination of open wounds after battlefield injury
    would prevent infection in minor to moderate wounds. The focus is on
    the development of a rapid set polymer that can be applied to a wound
    after cleaning.
    System of Assessing Wound Tissue Viability and Cleaning
        Determination of adequate debridement to remove contaminated and
    dead tissue is essential in the treatment of battlefield injuries.
    Research in this area to produce a hand held, portable device that can
    provide a real time assessment of tissue viability as an adjunct to
    surgical debridement is ongoing.
    Measuring Physical and Psychological Outcomes for Survivors of Severe
            Penetrating Upper Extremity Injury Sustained on the Battlefield
            in Iraq and Afghanistan
        A proposal to study the functional outcomes of U.S. casualties
    following major limb injury is being finalized by the U.S. Army
    Institute of Surgical Research. This study will help to determine the
    effect of these injuries as well as to identify areas for research in
    the future. The initial look will be a pilot study of the casualties
    from the conflicts. The ultimate goal is to establish a project to
    study these casualties prospectively throughout their treatment course.
    Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR)
        The U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research has developed this
    registry modeled after trauma registries mandated by the American
    College of Surgeons at U.S. trauma centers. This registry provides
    demographic and injury data on U.S. casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    It will be very useful in determining outcomes from major limb
    battlefield injury.
        There are also many exciting proposals for orthopaedic trauma
    research that have not been explored, such as:
      --Laboratory investigations on the pathogenesis and treatment of
            persistent infections in orthopaedic trauma.
      --Those injured in Iraq are suffering from a significant rate of
            wound infection, despite standard of care treatment.
            Acinetobacter, a bacterium, has been identified as a frequent
            cause of these infections, and research is needed into the
            pathogenesis of this organism in traumatic wounds, and
            evaluation of novel treatments.
      --Surgical and pharmacologic methods for the treatment of direct
            muscle trauma.

                          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. I am sure you heard about Captain David Rozelle, a Commander
    in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who was the first OIF amputee to
    return to active duty back in March 2005 less than 2 years after having
    his right foot blown off by a landmine. In an interview with the
    National Review Online (2/14/05), when asked why he wanted to return to
    duty, Capt. Rozelle responded, ``I am smarter, stronger, and more ready
    to help create freedom for the Iraqi people.'' Before returning to
    Iraq, Capt. Rozelle even completed the New York City Marathon. His
    heroic attitude, coupled with the superior care he received following
    his injuries, made Capt. Rozelle's return to service possible.
        Another story was recently highlighted in a March 2005 National
    Public Radio (NPR) series titled ``Caring for the Wounded: The Story of
    Two Marines.'' The story 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.
    While Nicoll continues to undergo physical therapy at Walter Reed to
    get used to his new prosthetic leg, made from graphite and titanium,
    his doctors, therapists, and he are confident that he will return to
    full function. In fact, shortly after the NPR series ran, Nicoll
    visited New Hampshire for a snowboarding vacation.
        While Sgt. Kasal's was so seriously injured that he lost 4 inches
    of bone in his right leg, due to medical advances in limb salvaging,
    Sgt. Kasal did not have to have his leg amputated. Kasal is currently
    undergoing a bone growth procedure, called the Illizarov Technique,
    which grows the bone 1 millimeter a day. In about 4 months, it is
    likely that Kasal will be able to walk on both of his own legs. These
    stories clearly illustrate the benefits of orthopaedic trauma research
    to America's soldiers.

                      ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA RESEARCH PROGRAM

        The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and military
    and civilian orthopaedic surgeons and researchers are grateful that the
    committee included language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense
    Appropriations Bill to make ``orthopaedic extremity trauma research'' a
    priority research topic within the Peer Reviewed Medical Research
    Program. From all indications, the number of grants submitted under
    this topic has been incredibly high compared to other research
    priorities listed in previous years. Clearly, there is both a need and
    a demand for funding for orthopaedic trauma research.
        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 related trauma research. The
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has worked closely with
    the top military orthopaedic surgeons, at world-class facilities such
    as the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX,
    Brooke Army Medical Center, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to
    identify gaps in orthopaedic trauma research and care, such as the need
    for improved anti-microbial bone-replacement material; systems for
    rapid wound irrigation, cleaning and debridement; laboratory
    investigations on the pathogenesis and treatment of persistent
    infections in orthopaedic trauma; and surgical and pharmacologic
    methods for the treatment of direct muscle trauma.
        The result of these discussions has been a proposal to create an
    Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program, administered by the U.S. Army
    Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to
    fund peer-reviewed intramural and extramural orthopaedic trauma
    research. The USAISR is the only Department of Defense Research
    laboratory devoted solely to improving combat casualty care. Having the
    program administered by the USAISR will ensure that the research
    funding follows closely the research priorities laid out by the Army
    and the Armed Forces, will be of the most benefit to injured soldiers,
    and will better ensure collaboration between military and civilian
    research facilities. USAISR has extensive experience administering
    similar grant programs.
        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 proposal and fully support its goals.

                                   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. The USAISR takes a leadership role
    in the administration of funding for peer-reviewed intramural and
    extramural orthopaedic trauma research. The research carried out at
    these facilities is vital 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
    2006 Defense Appropriations bill, ensure that orthopedic trauma
    research is a top priority.
        I urge you to establish 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 70
    percent 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.

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Polly.
    Every time we go out to Walter Reed or Bethesda to visit the
    wounded people, I am convinced in this war we are having fewer
    deaths, but more severe injuries.
        Dr. Polly. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Those too are going to require a
    considerable amount of research. As I said before, I do not
    know anyone that could match your ability in that.
        For the information of the audience, I had two back
    operations. After each one I went back to the same condition of
    not being able to stand up straight. Dr. Polly theorized that
    there was something in the spine rather than in the disks and
    he pursued his theory to my success. I run, I play tennis, I
    lift weights and I swim because of your skill and research,
    doctor. So we will follow you anywhere.
        Dr. Polly. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Will you check me out?
        Dr. Polly. Yes, sir. Right now?
        Senator Inouye. May I ask a question.
        Dr. Polly. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. A few days ago the base realignment and
    closure (BRAC) decisions were announced. Will that have any
    impact on your program?
        Dr. Polly. Sir, it is a needed realignment. There is some
    overt redundancy between Bethesda and Walter Reed and there are
    opportunities from the combination. The challenge is how to do
    it right. I think if you keep the spirit alive--I know that you
    spoke in 1988 at a dining-in at Walter Reed that I attended and
    you inspired each and every one of us, and we will be terribly
    sorry to lose the legacy of that institution and the 100 years
    of service and the many, many, many great Americans who have
    gone through there and received their care.
        But I think we need to move forward and to the future. One
    of the challenges at Walter Reed is simply parking and that
    people cannot get on and off the campus there and they do not
    have good public transportation. Bethesda is a better solution.
        While as a West Point graduate I admit a bias toward the
    Army, I recognize the overriding need for the good of DOD and
    the concept of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
    at Bethesda is a good idea. It should allow us to leverage the
    benefits of the NIH and build the world-class--continue the
    world-class facility that it is to provide the best care
    possible today, tomorrow, and in the future for the sons and
    daughters of America.
        Senator Inouye. Do you have any thoughts on the Uniformed
    Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)?
        Dr. Polly. Yes, sir. I am a graduate of the Uniformed
    Services University. I went to West Point, I served as a line
    officer, and then decided I wanted to go to medical school. I
    interviewed at the University of Virginia and had a deposit
    down on a place to live there. I went and interviewed at USUHS
    and was so inspired by J.P. Sanford and the program there that
    I changed my mind at the last minute and went to school there.
        That school is the reason that there was military medical
    care coordination in Desert Storm, because the USUHS graduates
    in the Army and the Navy and the Air Force called each other up
    and said: I am short on fluids; what have you got? Well, I got
    this and I got that. And there was a lot of horse-trading that
    went on that coordinated the care because of the network of
    interconnected people across the DOD.
        USUHS now serves as the hub for thinking about military
    medical care and we need to keep the best and brightest minds
    either on a consulting basis or a full-time basis there to
    stimulate the thoughts so that we can do a better job for the
    next generation of people serving our country.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, doctor. You have
    been most reassuring.
        Dr. Polly. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Well said, doctor. We are going to pursue
    you on that, too.
        The next witness is Carolina Hinestrosa, the Executive Vice
    President for Programs of the National Breast Cancer Coalition.

    STATEMENT OF CAROLINA HINESTROSA, EXECUTIVE VICE
                PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS AND PLANNING,
                NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION
        Ms. Hinestrosa. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Stevens
    and ranking member Inouye. Thank you and your subcommittee for
    your great determination and leadership in helping us secure
    funding for understanding how to prevent and cure breast cancer
    through the Department of Defense breast cancer research
    program.
        I am a two-time breast cancer survivor. I am a wife and a
    mother and, as you know, I am Executive Vice President of the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition. On behalf of the coalition
    and the more than 3 million women living with breast cancer, I
    thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
        We are requesting level funding for the breast cancer
    research program this year. This program is a critical research
    program that has transformed biomedical research. It has
    established itself as a model that is admired around the world
    for its accountability and innovation. This critical program--
    it is important that this program maintains its structure and
    integrity. The program fills critical gaps in breast cancer
    research.
        As the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has pointed out in two
    separate reports, the DOD breast cancer research program fills
    an unmet need in breast cancer research in this community and
    is not duplicative of other programs. In both reports the IOM
    recommends that the program continue. Any changes to the
    structure of the program could significantly undermine its
    innovation and its ability to fund cutting edge breast cancer
    research.
        An inherent component of this program has been the
    inclusion of consumer advocates at every level, which has
    created an unprecedented working relationship between advocates
    and scientists and ultimately has led to new avenues of
    research in breast cancer. Since 1992 over 400 breast cancer
    survivors have served in the peer review panels for the DOD
    breast cancer research program and their vital role is key to
    the success of this model of biomedical research which is
    imitated around the world.
        The program is accountable to the public. Every cent that
    is spent must be reported at a public meeting held every 2
    years, called Era of Hope. The Era of Hope meeting this year is
    just a few weeks away in Philadelphia, from June 8 through June
    11. I hope you all will be able to attend this meeting to see
    the incredible progress that is being made through this
    program.
        I want to provide you with a couple of examples of research
    that has been funded through this program and that is making a
    real difference. You have heard about Timoxicin, a drug that
    was developed many years ago for a certain type of breast
    cancer. About 50 percent of women respond to that drug and some
    others and we do not know--we did not know who was able to
    respond. Funding by this program has identified two genes that
    can predict who would respond from this drug Timoxicin, so we
    will be able to give it to the right people.
        But most stunningly, last night I listened to a
    presentation in Orlando at the American Society for Clinical
    Oncology where they presented the results of a study of women
    with earlier breast cancer which was unprecedented. Using a
    biological monitor and an antibody of a drug, Receptin, they
    were able to show a 50 percent improvement in survival for
    women who have a particularly aggressive type of breast cancer.
        This funding for this type of research was possible in the
    early years by the Department of Defense breast cancer research
    program. It was innovative research and visionary research that
    was languishing and not being funded anywhere else. The DOD
    breast cancer research program understood and recognized the
    potential impact of this research and funded it in the early
    years and then the research progressed to women with advanced
    breast cancer and now with early breast cancer. The results
    from this research are about a 50 percent improvement in
    outcomes for these women.
        So clearly the vision, the innovation of this program, is
    paying in a very important way to the American taxpayer.
        On behalf of the women with breast cancer and on behalf of
    our daughters and granddaughters who are counting on us to do
    the right thing, I thank you for your support and urge level
    funding for this program.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Carolina Hinestrosa

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Defense, for the opportunity to speak to you today
    about a program that, with little Federal investment, goes a long way
    toward increasing and improving breast cancer research. You and your
    committee have shown great determination and leadership in searching
    for the answers by funding the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-
    Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP) at a level that has
    brought us closer to eradicating this disease.
        I am Carolina Hinestrosa, a two-time breast cancer survivor, a wife
    and mother, and Executive Vice President for Programs and Planning 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 today.
        The DOD BCRP's 13 years of progress in the fight against breast
    cancer has been made possible by the Appropriations Committee's
    investment in breast cancer research. To continue this unprecedented
    progress, we ask that you support level funding for this program--a
    $150 million appropriation for fiscal year 2006. As an Institute of
    Medicine (IOM) report concluded last year, there continues to be
    excellent science that goes unfunded, but for this small program, which
    is why we believe that the BRCP should be appropriated level funding
    for fiscal year 2006.
        As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots
    advocacy organization made up of more than 600 organizations and tens
    of thousands of individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the
    eradication of 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.

       WHY THE DOD BREAST CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM NEEDS LEVEL FUNDING IN
                                FISCAL YEAR 2006

        In the past 13 years, the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research
    Program has established itself as a 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 no bureaucracy,
    the program is able to respond quickly to what is currently happening
    in the scientific community. It is able to fill gaps with little red
    tape. It is responsive, not just to the scientific community, but also
    to the public.
        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 inherent part of this program has been the
    inclusion of consumer advocates at every level, which has created an
    unprecedented working relationship between advocates and scientists,
    and ultimately has led to new avenues of research in breast cancer.
    Since 1992, nearly 800 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.
        the dod peer reviewed bcrp provides unique funding opportunities
        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.
        Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast
    cancer researchers fascinating insights into the biology of breast
    cancer and have brought into sharp focus the areas of research that
    hold promise and will build on the knowledge and investment we have
    made. The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards (IDEA) grants
    of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to new
    discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking
    research. The IDEA grants have been instrumental in the development of
    promising breast cancer research. These grants have allowed scientists
    to explore beyond the realm of traditional research and have unleashed
    incredible new ideas and concepts. IDEA grants are uniquely designed to
    dramatically advance our knowledge in areas that offer the greatest
    potential.
        IDEA grants are precisely the type of grants that rarely receive
    funding through more traditional programs such as the National
    Institutes of Health, and academic research programs. Therefore, they
    complement, and do not duplicate, other Federal funding programs. This
    is true of other DOD award mechanisms as well.
        For example, the Innovator awards are structured to 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 Institute faculty would receive training toward
    establishing successful breast cancer research careers.
        These are just a few examples of innovative approaches at the DOD
    BCRP that are filling gaps in breast cancer research. It is vital that
    these grants are able to continue to support the growing interest in
    breast cancer research--$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.

     SOME OF THE MANY EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS BROUGHT ABOUT BY
           THIS COMMITTEE'S INVESTMENT IN THE DOD PEER REVIEWED BCRP

        The BCRP research portfolio is comprised of many different types of
    projects, including support for innovative ideas, infrastructure
    building to facilitate clinical trials, and training breast cancer
    researchers.
        One of the most promising outcomes of research funded by the BCRP
    was the development of Herceptin, a drug that prolongs the lives of
    women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer.
    This drug could not have been developed without first researching and
    understanding the gene known as 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 prevents
    lymphoderma, which can be painful and have lasting complications.
        Several studies funded by the BCRP will examine the role of
    estrogen and estrogen signaling in breast cancer. For example, one
    study examined the effects of the two main pathways that produce
    estrogen. Estrogen is often processed by one of two pathways; one
    yields biologically active substances while the other does not. It has
    been suggested that women who process estrogen via the biologically
    active pathway may be at higher risk of developing breast cancer. It is
    anticipated that work from this funding effort will yield insights into
    the effects of estrogen processing on breast cancer risk in women with
    and without family histories of breast cancer.
        One DOD IDEA award success has supported the development of new
    technology that may be used to identify changes in DNA. This technology
    uses a dye to label DNA adducts, compounds that are important because
    they may play a role in initiating breast cancer. Early results from
    this technique are promising and may eventually result in a new marker/
    method to screen breast cancer specimens.
        Investigators funded by the DOD have developed a novel imaging
    technique that combines two-dimensional and three-dimensional digital
    mammographic images for analysis of breast calcifications. Compared to
    conventional film screen mammography, this technique has greater
    resolution. Ultimately, this technique may help reduce the number of
    unnecessary breast biopsies.
        Despite the enormous successes and advancements in breast cancer
    research made through funding from the DOD BCRP, we still do not know
    what causes breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. It is
    critical that innovative research through this unique program continues
    so that we can move forward toward eradicating this disease.
    congress and taxpayers know how their investment is spent and that the

               DOD PEER REVIEWED BCRP IS 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 underfunded. This was
    confirmed and reiterated in an IOM report released last year. 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 $1.66
    billion in appropriations. From its inception through fiscal year 2003,
    4,073 awards at 420 institutions throughout the United States and the
    District of Columbia have been awarded. Approximately 150 awards will
    be granted for fiscal year 2004. The areas of focus of the DOD BCRP
    span a broad spectrum and include basic, clinical, behavioral,
    environmental sciences, and alternative therapy studies, to name a few.
    The BCRP benefits women and their families by maximizing resources 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
    6,200 publications in scientific journals, more than 4,200 abstracts
    and 140 patents/licensure applications. The Federal Government can
    truly be proud of its investment in the DOD BCRP.

     RESEARCHERS, CONSUMERS AND POLICY MAKERS AGREE: THE DOD PEER REVIEWED
                              BCRP SHOULD CONTINUE

        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 Era of Hope meeting
    has set a precedent, it is the first time a federally funded program
    reported back to the public in detail not only on the funds used, but
    also on the research undertaken, the knowledge gained from that
    research and future directions to be pursued. The transparency of the
    BCRP allows scientists, consumers and the American public to see the
    exceptional progress made in breast cancer research.
        At the 2002 Era of Hope meeting, all BCRP award recipients from
    fiscal years 1998-2000 were invited to report their research findings,
    and many awardees from previous years were asked to present
    advancements in their research. Scientists reported important advances
    in the study of cancer development at the molecular and cellular level.
    Researchers presented the results of research that elucidates several
    genes and proteins responsible for the spread of breast cancer to other
    parts of the body, and, more importantly, reveals possible ways to stop
    this growth. The meeting, which marked the 10th anniversary of the
    program, also featured grant recipients who are working towards more
    effective and less toxic treatments for breast cancer that target the
    unique characteristics of cancer cells and have a limited effect on
    normal cells. The next meeting will be held in June 2005.
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
    scientists with new ideas and has continued to facilitate new thinking
    in breast cancer research and research in general. Research that has
    been funded through the DOD BCRP is available to the public.
    Individuals can go to the Department of Defense website and look at the
    abstracts for each proposal 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.
        In May 1997, our members presented a petition with more than 2.6
    million signatures to congressional leaders on the steps of the
    Capitol. The petition called on the President and the U.S. Congress to
    spend $2.6 billion on breast cancer research between 1997 and the year
    2000. Funding for the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program
    was an essential component of reaching the $2.6 billion goal that so
    many women and families worked for.
        Once again, NBCC is bringing its message to Congress. Just over 1
    month from now, many of the women and family members who supported the
    campaign to gather the 2.6 million signatures will come to NBCCF's
    Annual Advocacy Training Conference here in Washington, DC. More than
    600 breast cancer activists from across the country will join 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
    are willing to come to Washington, DC from across the country to
    deliver their message about their commitment.
        Since the very beginning of this program in 1992, Congress has
    stood 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, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to recognize
    the importance of what has been initiated by the Appropriations
    Committee. 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 continuing to fund research that will help us
    win this very real and devastating war against a cruel enemy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and for
    giving hope to the 3 million women in the United States living with
    breast cancer.

        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you very much. I think
    you should also thank the members of the United States Senate,
    because you may notice that this is in a defense account. It
    should have been in the health account. But as we all know, the
    health account is lacking in appropriate funds. Therefore, with
    the permission of the Senate, we have put it in the defense
    fund.
        Ms. Hinestrosa. And I thank you for that.
        Senator Inouye. You can be assured that will continue.
        Ms. Hinestrosa. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Our next witness is the Director of the Osteoporosis
    Research Center on behalf of the National Coalition for
    Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, Dr. Robert Recker.
    Doctor.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECKER, M.D., DIRECTOR,
                OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH CENTER, ON BEHALF OF
                THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND
                RELATED BONE DISEASES
        Dr. Recker. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert Recker, Director of
    the Osteoporosis Center at Creighton University in Omaha,
    Nebraska. I am testifying on behalf of the National Coalition
    for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases. We appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the necessity for continued support and
    funding of the bone health and military medical readiness
    research program within the Department of Defense.
        This research program addresses the problem of stress
    fractures. These fractures are the most serious overuse
    injuries that are the result of repeated stresses that occur in
    vigorous training and not from a single traumatic event. Stress
    fracture injury has a marked impact on the health and force
    readiness of military personnel, imposing significant costs in
    medical care, extended training time, attrition of personnel,
    and ultimately military readiness.
        It is one of the most common and disabling overuse injuries
    seen in military recruits today, particularly in women.
    Approximately 50 percent of all women and 30 percent of all men
    sustain an overuse injury in basic training, and the majority
    of soldiers pulled from training for rehabilitation suffer from
    stress fractures. Worse, 40 percent of the men and 60 percent
    of the women pulled from training due to stress fracture do not
    return and are retired from the military and discharged. Those
    who do return require 80 to 120 days of rehabilitation.
        At Fort Jackson alone, an estimated $26 million was spent
    in one year on training 749 soldiers later discharged due to
    stress fracture. Our own archive from our experience and
    research at Fort Leonard Wood shows that extent of these
    fractures that range from pelvic fractures to upper hip
    fractures, mid-leg fractures, lower limb fractures, foot
    fractures. Some of them are disabling for life.
        The bone health and military medical readiness research
    program has provided some practical solutions to help protect,
    sustain, and enhance the performance of military personnel.
    Research with human and animal models has revealed the
    following. The length of stride for women is related to
    fracture. Genetics plays a role in bone marrowization and
    structural processes of bone that influence strength. Calorie
    restriction and calcium deficiency result in decreased
    structural properties of bone and contribute to decreased bone
    strength. Oral contraceptive use contributes to reduced bone
    mass, which increases fracture risk. Chronic alcohol
    consumption inhibits bone formation.
        We at Creighton, collaborating with military scientists,
    have demonstrated that heel ultrasound measurement and
    assessment of risk factors, such as physical fitness, smoking,
    use of injectable contraceptives, performed at the onset of
    basic training predict risk of stress fractures. As a result of
    such research, technologies such as positron emission
    tomography, acoustic emission, are being developed for higher
    imaging and better identification of stress fractures.
    Modifications have been made to the U.S. Army physical fitness
    training program to reduce fractures while hopefully not
    decreasing the overall fitness of military recruits at the end
    of basic training.
        Studies are ongoing to determine whether Vitamin D or
    calcium supplementation decreases the incidence of stress
    fractures in new recruits. Additional research is needed. We
    need better approaches to identify and improve bone health in
    recruits, interventions to reduce stress fracture during
    strenuous physical training and deployment, and acceleration of
    stress fracture healing and return to full status.
        Mr. Chairman, in summary, stress fractures continue to
    occur, significantly impair military readiness, and delay the
    time to battlefield deployment. It is imperative that the
    Department of Defense build on recent findings and maintain an
    aggressive and sustained bone health research program at a
    level of $6 million in fiscal year 2006.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Joan Goldberg, Executive Director, American
                     Society for Bone and Mineral Research

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joan Goldberg,
    Executive Director of the American Society for Bone and Mineral
    Research and I am testifying on behalf of the National Coalition for
    Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases. The members of the Bone
    Coalition are the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the
    National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Paget Foundation for Paget's
    Disease of Bone and Related Disorders, and the Osteogenesis Imperfecta
    Foundation. We appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the
    necessity for continued support and funding of the Bone Health and
    Military Medical Readiness Research Program within the Department of
    Defense (DOD).
        The Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness Research Program
    addresses a critical obstacle to military readiness and a major cause
    of low soldier retention during basic training and thereafter. This
    program supports research to improve our understanding of stress
    fracture risk, to develop better assessment and prevention methods, all
    aimed at the preservation of bone health in military men and women.
    Currently, a significant research effort underway to protect and
    enhance bone health is targeting the elimination of training-related
    stress fractures.
        Stress fracture injury has a marked impact on the health and force
    readiness of military personnel, imposing significant costs to the
    Department of Defense in terms of medical care, extended training time,
    attrition of military personnel and, ultimately, military readiness. It
    is one of the most common and potentially debilitating overuse injuries
    seen in military recruits today, particularly in women. Recent
    statistics show that approximately 50 percent of all women and 30
    percent of all men sustain an overuse injury in basic training. The
    majority of soldiers pulled from training for rehabilitation suffer
    from stress fracture. Worse, 40 percent of the men and 60 percent of
    the women pulled from training due to stress fracture do not return to
    training. In fact, they are discharged from the military. Those who do
    return to training require 80 to 120 days of rehabilitation. At Fort
    Jackson alone, over a 1-year period an estimated $26 million was spent
    on training 749 soldiers later discharged due to stress fracture. This
    does not include costs related to health care.
        Stress fractures occur when muscles transfer the overload of strain
    to the bone, most commonly in the lower leg, and cause a tiny crack.
    Anyone who suddenly increases his or her frequency, intensity, or
    duration of physical activity, such as reservists or soldiers returning
    from long deployments where physical activity could not be undertaken
    on a regular basis, has an increased risk of developing lower body
    stress fractures. There are several forms of stress fractures that
    require more involved treatment. Stress fractures in the ``knobby''
    part of the femur--the bone that fits into the hip socket or hip bone
    itself--sometimes progress to full fractures or larger fractures and
    interrupt the blood supply to the thigh bone portion of the hip joint.
    This in turn can cause early degenerative changes in the hip joint.
    Physicians consider this type of stress fracture to be a medical
    emergency for this reason. Other particularly slowly healing stress
    fractures include those of the navicular (foot bone), anterior cortex
    of the tibia (front portion of the mid-shin bone) and proximal fifth
    metatarsal (a bone in the foot). Healing takes months.
        The Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness Research Program is
    already providing the military with some practical solutions to help
    protect, sustain and enhance the performance of military personnel.
    Research using animal and human models to study the influence of
    genetics, nutrition, exercise, and other influences on bone quality,
    and fracture risk, has revealed the following:
      --The length of stride for women is related to fracture.
      --Genetics plays a role not only in bone mineralization, but
            significantly influences other structural properties of bone
            that influence bone strength. Further, genetics influences the
            sensitivity of bone tissue to mechanical loading and unloading.
            (``Loading'' is experienced when moving, with higher load
            experienced when bending over, lifting weights, etc.)
      --In identical environments, the genetic influence of mechanical
            loading is site specific, and affects different kinds of bone
            differently.
      --In the tibia, the most common site of stress fracture injury, bone
            tissue compensates for the smaller geometry of this bone
            through variations in material properties that result in
            increased susceptibility to bone damage under conditions of
            repetitive loading.
      --Caloric restriction and calcium deficiency--common to women on
            diets--result in decreased structural properties of bone, and
            may contribute to decreased bone strength. (Weaker bones may
            suffer more damage.)
      --Oral contraceptive use contributes to reduced bone mass
            accumulation. (Low bone mass increases fracture risk.)
      --Chronic alcohol consumption inhibited tibial bone formation,
            possibly through observed decreases in production of the growth
            factor IGF-I.
      --The growth factor IGF-I is critical for puberty-induced bone
            growth, further supporting a prominent role for IGF-I in bone
            formation.
      --Meta-analyses--reviews of multiple studies--confirm that both
            aerobic exercise and resistance training improve bone density
            at multiple sites in women.
      --Short-term exercise was sufficient to elicit improvements in
            mechanical properties of male but not female mice, indicating a
            gender-specific response to exercise.
      --Individuals with dark skin or who are receiving minimal sun
            exposure--e.g. in late winter--demonstrate Vitamin D deficiency
            and may benefit from supplementation with Vitamin D, important
            in maintaining bone health.
        As a result of research such as the above:
      --A successful working prototype of a small-scale, high resolution
            positron emission tomography (PET) device was developed, for
            higher imaging and better identification of stress fractures.
      --Acoustic emission, a promising new method to detect microdamage in
            bone, detected changes in bone prior to its breaking in a
            laboratory setting.
      --Modifications have already been made to the U.S. Army physical
            fitness training program to decrease the volume of running and
            marching activities that take place during recruit training in
            an effort to reduce stress fracture injuries. This impact is
            being tracked.
      --A study is ongoing to determine whether Vitamin D supplementation
            decreases the incidence of stress fracture in new recruits.
        Additional bone research is needed, including better approaches to
    identify and improve bone health in at risk recruits, interventions to
    reduce stress fracture during strenuous physical training and
    deployment, and acceleration of stress fracture healing and return to
    full duty status. Areas of need include:
      --Utilizing genetic (bone density, bone geometry), lifestyle
            (nutrition, exercise history), and other risk factors
            (menstrual status, oral contraceptive use, smoking) to
            establish a risk factor profile that identifies individuals at
            high risk for stress fracture injury.
      --Expanding on preliminary findings that revealed gender differences
            in the response of bone to physical training.
      --Conducting small pilot studies and larger clinical trials of
            resistance training, aerobic exercise training, and diet and
            nutrition interventions to improve bone quality in a military
            population and to determine whether they can be successfully
            implemented to prevent or reduce significantly the incidence of
            stress fracture in a basic training population.
      --Advancing non-invasive bone imaging technologies to assess risk,
            identify stress fractures (easily missed by commonly used
            technology) and monitor healing.
        Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that stress fractures continue to
    occur, significantly impair military readiness, and delay the time to
    battlefield/deployment. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department
    of Defense build on recent findings and maintain an aggressive and
    sustained bone health research program at a level of $6 million in
    fiscal year 2006.

        Senator Inouye. Doctor, does your research indicate that
    there is a difference in the services? Does the Army suffer
    more stress than the Navy or the Air Force?
        Dr. Recker. No, the incidence of stress fractures seems to
    occur across the military, because the military basic training
    is pretty much similar in all the branches.
        Senator Inouye. Do you believe that the training mode
    should be studied?
        Dr. Recker. Yes, it should, and it has been studied. On the
    one hand, we cannot reduce the physical fitness of our training
    at the end of training, and on the other hand we have to
    arrange the training program so that we do not have so much
    disability from and training loss from stress fractures and
    other overuse injuries. But stress fractures are the worst. So
    yes, we need to continue to study that to try to get training
    programs that will give us----
        Senator Inouye. So your program is cost effective?
        Dr. Recker. I think so.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir.
        Dr. Recker. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is a member of the Board
    of Directors of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment,
    and Training Foundation, Mr. Martin B. Foil, Jr. Mr. Foil.

    STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., MEMBER, BOARD OF
                DIRECTORS, NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH,
                TREATMENT, AND TRAINING FOUNDATION
        Mr. Foil. Good morning, Senator Inouye--good afternoon, I
    guess. Nice to see you again and good to be here.
        Senator Inouye. It is morning in Hawaii, sir.
        Mr. Foil. Point well taken.
        I am happy to be here today and talk to you some about what
    some people call the signature condition of the conflict in
    Iraq, and that is traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to request
    $14 million for the defense and veterans head injury program.
    Over the past year this program has treated 1,000 troops with
    TBI. You have probably seen this in the papers, including USA
    Today and People magazine, copies of which have been attached
    to the written statement.
        Many of our service men and women are returning from Iraq
    with TBI's and not all have been appropriately diagnosed and
    treated. Through the work of the defense and veterans head
    injury program (DVHIP), we are able to identify most of these
    injuries, but unless we expand our research to areas where
    there are no treatment facilities or Veterans Administration
    (VA) hospitals many are going to fall through the cracks.
        Last year you asked me how the DVHIP could assure the
    optimum care beyond its eight lead sites and the regional
    network of secondary VA hospitals. This has been a top priority
    for DVHIP, but the agency administering has had other
    priorities. So we are going to move the program to Fort
    Detrick. We think it will be more successful, and ideally we
    would like to have facilities much like Virginia NeuroCare
    throughout the country, which last year had a 35 percent return
    to active duty rate.
        To meet immediate needs, DVHIP needs to offer a call for
    proposals for innovative clinical programs that will support
    distributed care networks. In addition, care coordinators will
    be strategically placed throughout the country for patients
    with TBI and their families in their home States.
        DVHIP continues to focus on blast injury, especially for
    those who are hit with IEDs, and is leading the effort to
    provide guidelines for the assessment and follow-up care after
    these blast-related TBIs within the military environment.
        Another priority is evaluating the connection between post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and TBI. There are
    similarities in the symptoms, yet treatment for the two
    conditions is quite different. There is not much known about
    combat PTSD in persons with TBI. Clinically focused research
    initiatives by DVHIP would investigate this unique relationship
    to ensure that the troops are receiving the best care available
    for both their brain and their mind.
        Mr. Chairman, there is $7 million in the DOD budget. We are
    asking for a plus-up of $7 million, so in all $14 million is
    being requested for this important program. The funding is
    needed to continue training combat medics, surgeons, general
    medical officers and reservists and the best practices of TBI
    care, provide continuity of care from the battlefield to rehab
    and back to Active duty, and to work to ensure that no one
    falls through the cracks.
        We are going to hope that you will continue to support our
    efforts to provide the best care possible to our Nation's brave
    men and women in uniform.
        Thank you very much. Any questions?
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Martin B. Foil, Jr.

        My name is Martin B. Foil, Jr. and I am the father of Philip Foil,
    a young man with a severe brain injury. I serve as a volunteer on the
    Board of Directors of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and
    Training Foundation (NBIRTT) \1\ and Virginia NeuroCare in
    Charlottesville, Virginia (VANC).\2\ Professionally, I am the Chief
    Executive Officer and Chairman of Tuscarora Yarns in Mt. Pleasant,
    North Carolina.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the
    support of clinical research, treatment and training.
        \2\ VANC provides brain injury rehabilitation to military
    personnel, veterans and civilians through an innovative and cost
    effective day treatment program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the thousands of military personnel that receive brain
    injury treatment and services annually, I respectfully request that a
    total of $14 million be provided in the Department of Defense (DOD)
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 for the Defense and Veterans
    Head Injury Program (DVHIP). This request includes the $7 million in
    the DOD's POM which we hope will be moved from the Uniformed Services
    University of the Health Sciences to the Army Medical Research and
    Materiel Command (AMRMC) at Fort Detrick. An additional $7 million plus
    up would allow the important work of the program to continue, with
    clinical care coordinated through Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    (WRAMC) as the headquarters for the entire program.

      TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (TBI) MAY BE THE SIGNATURE CONDITION OF THE
                                CONFLICT IN IRAQ

        Nearly 1,000 combat casualties from the Global War on Terrorism
    have been served by DVHIP, and that does not include active duty
    military injured in car crashes and other incidents occurring once they
    return home.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Survivors of War Take Fatal Risks on Roads, Gregg Zoroya, USA
    Today, May 3, 2005, pg A1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-
    03-brain-trauma-lede_x.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we reported in last year's testimony, the incidence of TBI
    sustained in theater was expected to be higher than in previous
    conflicts. That indeed has been true, and continues to be the case. In
    previous conflicts, TBI accounted for some 25 percent of combat
    casualties. However, last spring one WRAMC study found 61 percent of
    at-risk soldiers seen at WRAMC were assessed to have TBIs. Although
    this one study does not reflect the entire population of wounded in
    action, the high percentage suggests that TBI acquired in theater
    continues to be a problem that needs to be addressed. The reasons for
    the higher incidence of TBI include:
      --The use of effective body armor has saved more lives;
      --Medical personnel are more aware of the significance of mild closed
            TBIs and concussions and are therefore more likely to identify
            them; and
      --The incidence of blast injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan is high.
        There has also been an increase in awareness of TBI, mostly through
    news media reports of injured troops (e.g. recent USA Today and People
    articles are attached).\4\ Like Army Reserve Officer Alec Giess,
    featured in the People magazine story, some troops may not be diagnosed
    with TBI until months later. One of the greatest challenges the
    military health care and veterans systems face is to assure that no one
    falls through the cracks. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\T3AAfter Iraq, Devastating New Wounds, High-tech body
    armor is saving soldiers' lives on the battlefield. But it's leaving
    them with brain damage, T. Fields-Myer, V. Bane, J. Podesta, R.
    Schlesinger, J. Voelker, People Magazine, May 9, 2005, pg. 223-5; Key
    Iraq Wound: Brain Trauma, Body Armor Prevents Death, Not Damage, Gregg
    Zoroya, USA Today, March 4, 2005, pg. A1. http://www.palo-
    alto.med.va.gov/resources/docs/polytrauma/media/People Magazine050905-
    Print.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              THE DEFENSE AND VETERANS HEAD INJURY PROGRAM (DVHIP)

        Established in 1992, the DVHIP is a component of the military
    health care system that integrates clinical care and clinical follow-
    up, with applied research, treatment and training. The program was
    created after the 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 one
    civilian treatment site.\5\ In addition to providing treatment,
    rehabilitation and case management at each of the 8 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. DVHIP also
    provides education to providers and patients' families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; James A. Haley
    Veterans Hospital, Tampa, FL; Naval Medical Center San Diego, San
    Diego, CA; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis,
    MN; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA;
    Virginia Neurocare, Inc., Charlottesville, VA; Hunter McGuire Veterans
    Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, VA; Wilford Hall Medical Center,
    Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   CONTINUING EFFORTS AND CURRENT CHALLENGES

    Clinical Care
        DVHIP continues to ensure optimal care, conduct clinical research,
    provide educational programs on TBI as well as provide family support
    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 identifying 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.
    Community Reentry and Return To Work
        As of April 29, 2005, a full 35 percent of soldiers treated at
    Virginia NeuroCare (VANC) returned to active duty. As a core program of
    the DVHIP, VANC provides innovative community based rehabilitation
    programs that maximize functional independence and facilitate re-entry
    into family and community life. VANC's coordination with the Judge
    Advocate General (JAG) school, in which active duty soldiers get back
    into the military environment and develop work skills as well as
    participate in military exercises has demonstrated its excellence in
    the continuum of care received by injured military personnel. Housing
    for eight additional beds is needed, however, to accommodate the
    increase in active duty patients enrolled at VANC.
    Blast Injury Research
        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. DVHIP at WRAMC
    has identified over 400 patients who have sustained TBIs in OIF/OEF,
    most of whom have been injured in blasts. The goal of TBI treatment is
    to maintain individuals at duty whenever possible without negatively
    affecting the unit mission or the individual service member and to
    maximize the individual service member's potential for long term
    productivity and quality of life.
        The DVHIP is leading the effort to elucidate patterns of brain
    injury from blast, including providing guidelines for the assessment
    and follow-up care after blast-related TBI within the military
    environment. Ongoing DVHIP research is linked to clinical care programs
    to ensure that information learned from caring for these individuals
    will be disseminated to military and veteran treatment facilities and
    added to the medical literature. Continuing collaboration with military
    experts on blast, working with preclinical subjects, also will help to
    better understand the injuries our troops sustain.
    Medic Training
        In response to an unmet need identified at the March 2004 DVHIP co-
    sponsored Neurotrauma in Theater: Lessons Learned from Iraq and
    Afghanistan conference, DVHIP is developing a Combat Medic Training
    module, to be made available online and in theater by November 2005.
    DVHIP continues to proactively train deploying clinicians and care
    providers at troop-intensive military treatment facilities. A military
    first responder (Medic) online training course, which will offer CME
    and CEU credits, will be available online and in theater by early
    summer. Additional education initiatives include a Coordination of Care
    Guide for TBI case managers, multiple Grand Rounds, and the
    dissemination of DVHIP research and clinical practice publications.
    Post Deployment Forms
        DVHIP will continue its efforts to have blast and head injury
    exposure added to the current Post Deployment form. DVHIP's experience
    in identifying individuals with TBI and referring them for care at Ft.
    Bragg and Camp Pendleton will be turned into management algorithms for
    large scale use.

                                NEW INITIATIVES

    Improving Access to TBI Specific Care
        In order to assure that TBI specific care is available to
    individuals after leaving specialty treatment centers, DVHIP will offer
    a call for proposals for innovative clinical programs that will
    establish distributed care networks. Outcomes measurement will include
    patient level of independence, family education and satisfaction, and
    cost savings analyses. TBI care is currently centralized at DVHIP lead
    centers: four VA and three military medical centers, and one civilian
    community re-entry center. Patients who need TBI specialty follow-up
    care may be forced to travel great distances to receive it. Thus,
    proposals will be solicited to address this need, including bringing
    specialty TBI outpatient care to areas with no VA hospital (e.g.,
    Alaska). Proposals for two types of programs will be elicited:
      --TBI Community care.--Coordinated TBI case management, to include
            family support initiatives, has the potential to greatly
            facilitate community re-entry among TBI survivors. Proposals to
            be considered include augmented clinics and telemedicine. To be
            considered for funding, proposals must have clear outcome
            measures designed to quantify improvements in patient self-
            sufficiency and cost-savings to the Federal Government.
      --Treatment of neurobehavioral consequences of TBI.--Often the most
            disturbing to patients and families, neurobehavioral problems
            such as memory, personality, and mood may complicate re-entry
            to home and other relationships. Innovative, community-based
            programs that add neurobehavioral expertise for ongoing care of
            patients with TBI will be solicited.
    TBI and Mental Health Evaluation
        As soldiers return home, much attention is often paid to the
    possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). One critical area
    not to be overlooked is the relationship between TBI and PTSD. Research
    suggests that patients with both PTSD and TBI are an important
    population to identify, though not much is known about combat PTSD in
    persons with TBI. While there are some similarities in initial symptoms
    (headaches, trouble focusing, irritability), treatment for PTSD and TBI
    are indeed very different. Clinically focused research initiatives by
    DVHIP would investigate the unique relationship between TBI and PTSD to
    ensure that the troops are receiving the best care available for both
    their brain and their mind. Additional initiatives could focus on
    mental health providers, who may where individuals with TBI present for
    care.
    TBI Assessment in Theater
        DVHIP is leading the effort to provide evidence-based guidelines
    for the assessment and follow-up care after blast-related TBI within
    the military environment. An integral part of this effort is the
    development of militarily relevant concussion guidelines that are
    medically and scientifically based. Existing sports concussion
    guidelines are not fully applicable to combat situations--particularly
    because post injury symptoms may put the individual and fellow troops
    at risk. Medics and clinicians in theater have voiced great interest in
    objective tools to aide in the diagnosis and management of TBI. DVHIP
    is continuing to work toward the final development and deployment of a
    computerized assessment battery for concussion. DVHIP's unique role in
    ensuring state of the art clinical care throughout the various levels
    from battlefield to community reentry makes this possible.
        A January 2005, GAO report on vocational rehabilitation for injured
    service members emphasized that early intervention following TBI is
    highly correlated with positive outcomes.\6\ By making it possible to
    identify TBI immediately following an injury, America's war fighters
    will receive the best care possible. Widespread use of a TBI assessment
    battery will ensure that medics and clinicians in theater follow
    evidence-based concussion guidelines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Vocational Rehabilitation: More VA and DOD Collaboration Needed
    to Expedite Services for Seriously Injured Service members, GAO-05-167
    (Washington, DC: January 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TBI Screening
        The addition of a TBI clinician at key medical transfer points such
    as Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) in Germany and Andrews Air
    Force Base will ensure that the screening process developed at WRAMC by
    DVHIP identifies wounded service members who may also have a TBI. The
    implementation of screening at WRAMC has identified TBI in many
    soldiers who were not yet diagnosed with TBI. This effort would augment
    the current Joint Theater Trauma Registry that has limited information
    on brain injury, especially milder forms of TBI.
    Clinical Registry Database
        DVHIP proposes to develop a clinical registry, designed for
    obtaining information on TBI patients far forward and following their
    clinical outcomes. The database will also allow for rapid response to
    clinical questions from military and VA medical leaders regarding the
    incidence and outcome of TBI as well as permit the sharing of medical
    information between clinicians and case managers. Additionally, this
    will enable medical providers in theater to communicate questions
    regarding TBI patients to the DVHIP, and facilitate the timely transfer
    of patients to appropriate VA and military programs. This can be
    completed as a stand alone project focused on hospital and in-theater
    care, or as an augmentation of the Joint Theater Trauma Registry
    database.
    Educational Outreach
        There is a need for greater educational outreach (teams of trainers
    or other types of educational outreach) at specific non-DVHIP military
    medical facilities and troop intensive sites (e.g. Fort Hood, Fort
    Carson, etc.) to provide TBI training and education for providers with
    direct contact with large numbers of troops, both troops stationed
    locally and troops returning from theater (e.g., Reservists). This
    effort could also increase DVHIP's reach in surveillance to include
    centers beyond those in the core DVHIP network.
        An educational outreach team was very successful in educating
    providers of the 249th General Hospital who were deploying to
    Afghanistan without a neurosurgeon, as allied neurosurgical injuries
    were not anticipated. Training in neurocare was provided at Fort Gordon
    and contact continued via email after the 249th reached Afghanistan.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In NBIRTT's view, the Congress has been very responsive to the
    needs of our brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives for
    us. We urge your continued support for active duty military men and
    women sustaining brain injuries, whether in combat or at home. The
    DVHIP has stepped up to the plate to meet the needs of soldiers with
    brain injuries. Please support $14 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal
    year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill under AMRMC, Fort Detrick to
    continue this important program.
        Thank you.

        Senator Inouye. Will the VA benefit from your program?
        Mr. Foil. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Will you be able to seal up the cracks so
    they will not fall through?
        Mr. Foil. Well, nothing is 100 percent positive. But last
    year, if you remember, you and Senator Stevens asked us how we
    are going to help Hawaii and Alaska. You remember that?
        Senator Inouye. Yes, we have got big cracks there.
        Mr. Foil. That is right. Well, you heard me talk about care
    coordinators. What we would like to do and what our agenda is
    if we get this money is to take this--hold on just a minute.
    Let us see.
        There are a couple of places in Hawaii that we are looking
    at that if we have the money to do this we would like to look
    at, Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu and the VA Medical
    Center in Honolulu. We would like to place a care coordinator
    in there, and their job is going to be to start a program much
    like we see here in the United States that has been so
    successful.
        In Alaska there are a couple of opportunities, Bassett Army
    Community Hospital in Fort Wainwright, which is in Fairbanks,
    and there is a medical facility at Elmendorf Air Base called
    the Health and Wellness Center in Anchorage. Also, the VA
    Medical Center in Alaska is in Anchorage with two other
    outpatient clinics in both Fairbanks and Kenai--is that the way
    you pronounce it?
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. ``KEE-nie.''
        Mr. Foil. ``KEE-nie.''
        Senator Stevens. Kenai, it is the home of the greatest
    salmon in the world.
        Mr. Foil. All right, sir. I stand corrected.
        But there is a lot to be done and I think we have the
    opportunity to do this and do it properly. But we need your
    support to be able to get it done, Senators. We would love to
    have the opportunity to do this both in Hawaii and Alaska, and
    there are other places where we do not have those
    opportunities.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
        Mr. Foil. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Doctor, we are going to try to make sure
    that we do move that budget over to the Army Medical Research
    and Material Command at Fort Detrick. We agree with you on that
    and we will do our best to do that.
        Mr. Foil. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it.
        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dennis Duggan, Deputy
    Director, National Security Commission for the American Legion.
    Comrade, it is nice to see you.

    STATEMENT OF DENNIS MICHAEL DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN
                LEGION
        Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir, nice to see you again. Mr. Chairman
    and ranking member, Senator Inouye: The American Legion, the
    Nation's largest organization of wartime veterans, is extremely
    grateful for this opportunity to present its views on defense
    appropriations for fiscal year 2006. We have always valued your
    leadership and your subcommittee's leadership in assessing and
    authorizing adequate funding for quality of life,
    modernization, and readiness features for the Nation's armed
    forces, Active, Reserve, National Guard, as well as for our
    Nation's military retiree veterans and their dependents.
        As we know too well, the war on terrorism is being waged on
    two fronts, overseas in a bitter, bloody struggle with armed
    insurgents and at home, protecting and securing the homeland.
    Most of what we hold dear as Americans was made possible by the
    peace and stability that the armed forces have provided by
    taking the fight to the enemy in overseas battlegrounds.
        However, a decade of overuse of a smaller Army, a large-
    scale use of reservists and National Guardsmen in combat, and a
    past history of some underfunding has certainly warranted your
    sustained investment. And, Mr. Chairman, it is deeply
    appreciated.
        The American Legion continues to urge an increase in Army
    manpower strengths. We also are strongly supportive of
    congressional authorization and funding of the necessary
    recruiting tools, particularly for the Army, Army Reserve, and
    Army National Guard, and perhaps the Marines. The funding of
    even more recruiting bonuses, recruiters, advertising as
    appropriate should be funded if needed.
        Funding of an improved Montgomery Government Issue (GI)
    bill for the Active and Reserve components was certainly
    justified, and increased death gratuities and traumatic injury
    insurance we believe are overdue as well.
        We salute the Senate in protecting our troops and boosting
    military benefits.
        Mr. Chairman, while we are fighting what will likely be a
    long, hard war on terrorism, we believe we must also keep an
    eye on the Far East, particularly North Korea and China. Both
    countries are flexing their military muscles in the Pacific
    while the United States is distracted at war in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. For that reason, we are extremely grateful that
    the Senate is requiring the Navy to retain the 12-carrier fleet
    Navy rather than scaling back.
        As a concerned veterans organization, something tells us
    perhaps that we should also be producing more than four Aegis
    DDGs per year and perhaps not discharging as many as the 10,000
    sailors that we seem to be doing.
        Finally, with regard to the 2005 defense BRAC, the American
    Legion would only urge that irreplaceable base facilities and
    essential base facilities, perhaps such as military medical
    facilities and commissaries and perhaps training areas, be
    retained for use by Reserve components as needed or by military
    retiree veterans and their families whenever such is possible.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes the oral statement of the
    American Legion and we thank you again for this opportunity.
        [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 2006.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 Rusted 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 military downsizing was 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 Marine Corps, 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 2006 budget requests $419.3
    billion for defense or about 17 percent of the total budget. The fiscal
    year 2006 defense budget represents a 4.8 percent increase in defense
    spending over current funding levels. It also represents about 3.5
    percent of our Gross National Product. Active duty military manpower
    end-strength is now over 1.388 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 fight the
    global war on terrorism, sustain and improve quality of life and
    continue to transform the military. 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 address
    increases in Army end-strengths, 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 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 service members.
        The President's fiscal year 2006 defense budget requests over $105
    billion for military pay and allowances, including a 3.1 percent
    across-the-board pay raise. 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 2005 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.
        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 Commanders have visited American
    troops in Europe, the Balkans, 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, they were able to see first hand the urgent, immediate need to
    address real quality of life challenges faced by service members and
    their families. Severely wounded service members who have families and
    are convalescing in military hospitals clearly need to have their
    incomes increased when they are evacuated from combat zones. Also, the
    medical evaluation board process needs to be expedited so that military
    severance and disability retirement pays will be more immediately
    forthcoming. Our National Commanders have spoken with families on
    Women's and Infants' Compensation (WIC), where quality-of-life issues
    for service members, 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, other than 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 increase active duty and perhaps
    reserve end-strengths 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. 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 provides 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 will increase the number of active Army maneuver
    brigades by 30 percent by fiscal year 2007. The Army National Guard
    will reach 34 brigades. The Marine Corps will increase by two
    battalions.
        The budget deficit is projected to be $427 billion; 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 14 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 service
    member'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
    service members 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 American Legion strongly urges Congress to mandate separation
    physical exams for all service members, particularly those who have
    served in combat zones or have had sustained deployments. DOD reports
    that only about 20 percent of discharging service members 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 service members,
    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 totally inadequate $12,000 death
    gratuity needs to be increased to $100,000 and the SGLI needs to be
    increased to at least $400,000; 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 pay (combat pay, family separation pay, etc) and base pay and
    allowances during the period of their convalescence continued at the
    same level to not jeopardize their families' financial support during
    recovery. Furthermore, the medical evaluation board process needs to be
    expedited 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 Uniformed
    Services University of the Health Sciences must also be fully
    appropriated. The American Legion appreciates the administration and
    Congress's support of the Wounded Warrior bill designed to provide
    financial help to soldiers and their families when they are wounded or
    otherwise traumatically injured.
        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.
        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 eliminated as soon as
    possible. It is blatantly unfair and has penalized deserving military
    survivors for years. A number of these military survivors were 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 survivors benefit plan (SBP) and DIC for
    military survivors. Not to do so merely continues 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. Service
    members 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 the 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.
      --Increasing the death gratuity to $100,000 and $400,000 for SGLI for
            all active duty or activated Reservists who are killed or who
            die while on active duty after September 11, 2001 during the
            War on Terror.
      --Improving the pay of severely wounded service members and
            expediting the medical evaluation board process.
      --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, DC and the United States Naval
            Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, are 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 American Legion recommends that the
            Congress conduct an independent assessment of these two
            facilities and the services being provided with an eye toward
            federally subsidizing these two Homes as appropriate. Both
            facilities have been recognized as national treasures until
            recent years when a number of mandated services have 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 urges that certain base facilities such as military
            medical facilities, commissaries, exchanges and training
            facilities and other quality of life facilities be preserved
            for use by the active and reserve components and military
            retirees and their families.

                   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 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' Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3). 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-two 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 2006 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 Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Do you have any comments?
        Senator Inouye. I support.
        Senator Stevens. We generally support what you have said. I
    disagree with you on the aircraft carriers, but he agrees with
    you, so you are ahead.
        Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Duggan. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Next is Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Paul
    Austin of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Yes,
    sir.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL PAUL N. AUSTIN, CRNA,
                Ph.D., U.S. AIR FORCE (RETIRED), ON BEHALF
                OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE
                ANESTHETISTS
        Dr. Austin. Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye: Good
    afternoon. My name is Dr. Paul Austin and I'm a certified
    registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA), recently retired from the
    U.S. Air Force after 24 years of proudly serving my country.
    For the majority of this time I served as a nurse anesthesia
    educator who was the Director of both the U.S. Air Force and
    the Uniformed Services University nurse anesthesia programs.
        The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA)
    represents more than 30,000 CRNAs, including 483 Active duty
    CRNAs, 790 reservists in the military. CRNAs continue to be
    deployed to the Middle East for Operation Iraqi Freedom and
    Operation Enduring Freedom, providing anesthesia in all types
    of surgical procedures, both on ships and on the ground.
        In many cases CRNAs are the sole anesthesia providers for
    our troops, which General Brannon stated before this
    subcommittee last week, and I quote: ``Lieutenant Colonel
    Bonnie Mack and Major Virginia Johnson are CRNAs deployed to
    Tallil Air Base in Iraq as the only anesthesia providers for
    over 20,000 U.S. and coalition forces and civilian contract
    personnel.''
        Today maintaining adequate numbers of Active duty CRNAs is
    of the utmost importance to the Department of Defense to meet
    its military medical readiness mission. For several years the
    number of CRNAs serving on Active duty has fallen somewhat
    short of the number authorized by the DOD. This is complicated
    by the strong demand for CRNAs in both 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 specialty pay, or ISP, increase from
    $15,000 to $50,000. The AANA appreciates this subcommittee's
    continued support to fund the ISP to retain and to recruit
    CRNAs.
        Last, the establishment of the joint VA-DOD program in
    nurse anesthetist education at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio
    holds the promise of making significant improvements in the VA
    CRNA workforce and improving retention of VA registered nurses
    (RNs) in a cost effective manner. This 30-month program
    attracts RNs into VA service by sending RNs a strong message
    that the VA is committed to their educational advancement.
        Due to continued interest by VA RNs in the program, the
    program will be expanding to five openings for the June 2005
    class. In addition, this partnership enables the VA faculty
    director to cover her Army colleagues' classes when they are
    deployed at a moment's notice.
        In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and
    retention of CRNAs in the services is critical to our men and
    women in uniform. Continued funding of the ISP will help meet
    this challenge. The AANA thanks this subcommittee for your
    continued support for CRNAs in the military.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) 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 30,000 certified
    registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in the United States, including
    482 active duty and 799 reservists in the military. 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

        Let us begin by describing the profession of nurse anesthesia, and
    its history and role with the military medical system.
        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 have CRNAs 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. 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. This committee must ensure that we
    retain and recruit CRNAs now and in the future to serve in these
    military overseas deployments, 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. The
    profession of nurse anesthesia has increased its number of accredited
    CRNA schools, from 88 to 94 in the past year. Each CRNA school
    continues to turn away qualified applicants--bachelor's educated nurses
    who had spent at least 1 year serving in a critical care environment.
    Recognizing the importance of nurse anesthetists to quality healthcare,
    the AANA has been working with its 94 accredited schools of nurse
    anesthesia to increase the number of qualified graduates, and to expand
    the number of CRNA schools. The Council on Accreditation of Nurse
    Anesthesia Educational Programs (COA) reports that in 1999, our schools
    produced 948 new graduates. By 2004, that number had increased to
    1,628, a 72 percent increase in just 5 years. The growth is expected to
    continue. The COA projects CRNA schools to produce 1,800 graduates in
    2005.
        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.
        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. The AANA is requesting that this committee support
    funding increases for the ISP for all the branches of the armed
    services to retain and recruit CRNAs now and into the future.
        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 2004 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
    $159,000 (includes Owner/Partner of a CRNA Group). These median
    salaries include call pay, overtime pay, and bonus pay. These salaries
    are still higher than the median CRNA's salary of $88,000 across all
    military service branches.
        In civilian practice, all additional skills, experience, duties and
    responsibilities, and hours of work are compensated for monetarily.
    Additionally, training (tuition and continuing education), healthcare,
    retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses, and other benefits often
    equal or exceed those offered in the military.
        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
        AANA thanks this committee for its support of the annual ISP for
    nurse anesthetists. AANA strongly recommends the continuation and an
    increase in the annual funding for ISP for fiscal year 2006. 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.
        While many CRNAs have received board certification pay, there are
    many that remain ineligible. Since certification to practice as a CRNA
    does not require a specific master's degree (though all CRNAs
    graduating and being certified today do so as master's graduates), many
    nurse anesthetists have chosen to diversify their education by pursuing
    an advanced degree in other related fields. But CRNAs with master's
    degrees in education, administration, or management are not necessarily
    eligible for board certification pay since their graduate degrees are
    not in a clinical specialty. To deny a bonus to these individuals is
    unfair, and will certainly affect their morale as they work side-by-
    side with their less-experienced colleagues, who will collect a bonus
    for which they are not eligible. In addition, in the future this bonus
    will act as a financial disincentive for nurse anesthetists to
    diversify and broaden their horizons.
        AANA encourages the Department of Defense and the respective
    services to reexamine the issue of awarding board certification pay
    only to CRNAs who have clinical master's degrees.

     DOD-VA RESOURCE SHARING: DOD-VA NURSE ANESTHESIA SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF
                TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, HOUSTON, TX

        The establishment of the joint Department of Defense-VA program in
    nurse anesthesia education at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX 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 will be
    increasing 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 to seven students 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-VA 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,
    DOD-VA 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 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 U.S. Army Surgeon General and Dr.
    Michael J. Kussman, MD, MS, FACP (Department of Veterans' Affairs
    Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health) approved funding to start
    this VA nurse anesthesia school in 2004. In addition, the Army program
    director COL Norma Garrett, Ph.D., CRNA with VA director Dr. Maureen
    Reilly, CRNA, MSN, MHS, Ph.D. working under her guidance continue to
    work together for the continued success in this DOD-VA partnership,
    with the support of Anesthesia Service Director Dr. Michael Bishop, MD.
    With modest levels of additional funding in the EISP, this joint DOD-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. The efforts
    detailed above will assist the military services in maintaining the
    military's ability to meet its wartime and medical mobilization through
    the funding both the ISP and board certification pay. Last, we commend
    and thank this committee for their continued support for CRNAs in the
    military.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. About 2 years ago I had laser surgery in
    the eye and the anesthesia was administered by a nurse
    anesthetist. They are very good.
        Dr. Austin. Thank you, sir. We are very proud and very
    proud to serve the men and women in uniform.
        Senator Stevens. We have supported this annual funding for
    incentive pay. Tell us how it worked?
        Dr. Austin. Increasing the ceiling from the former level to
    the level it is now, it is a bit too soon to tell whether or
    not it is going to make a difference. That increased the
    ceiling and that ceiling then can be dealt with by the
    individual services to meet the needs of the services. The Army
    was the service that was and is most impacted and it is
    probably too soon to tell whether or not it is going to make a
    difference, but we are very optimistic that it is going to help
    maintain those billets.
        Senator Stevens. Let us know, because with the record of
    your profession's participate in the military, I think we might
    have to mandate its use rather than authorize its use. But tell
    them to keep us informed, will you, please?
        Dr. Austin. Thank you very much, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. What is the national shortage of registered
    nurse anesthetists?
        Dr. Austin. Currently the national shortage, as far as a
    percentage, we would have to get you that data. But there
    continues to be a shortage. For instance, in the State of
    Maryland there is a hospital that has an immediate need for 11
    full-time nurse anesthetists that they have not figured out by
    July 1 how they are going to fill. So that is a local example
    that really does serve as an example nationally.
        The exact number, though, sir, we can get to you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Austin. I am sorry. A staff member brought up: In 2003
    there is an 11 percent vacancy rate nationwide.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        I believe we have Jim Hoehn to testify for the Coalition of
    Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; is that
    correct?
    STATEMENT OF JIM HOEHN, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
                EPSCoR (EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE
                COMPETITIVE RESEARCH) STATES
        Mr. Hoehn. Yes, Senator. Jim Hoehn.
        Senator Stevens. Hoehn, thank you very much.
        Mr. Hoehn. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the
    Department of Defense's basic science research program and the
    Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
    or DEPSCoR. I am a senior associate at the EPSCoR Idea
    Foundation, which is a nonprofit 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 spent 29 years with the
    National Science Foundation (NSF), the last 5 of which I was
    head of the EPSCoR Office at NSF, chairing the interagency
    coordinating committee for EPSCoR.
        I speak today on behalf of the coalition of 24 EPSCoR
    States in support of both the Department of Defense's science
    and engineering research program and an important component of
    that program, DEPSCoR. Mr. Chairman, we regret that some of the
    DEPSCoR researchers from Alaska could not be here because of
    the change of the date of the hearing.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, thank you for your
    leadership and support, which led to an increase in DEPSCoR
    funding in 2005. This increase was a good first step in
    bringing funding up to a level that will fully enable DEPSCoR
    researchers to offer quality research directly related to the
    mission of the Department of Defense. The Coalition of EPSCoR
    States strongly supports the Department's budget request for
    basic research. DEPSCoR is a small but significant part of this
    larger multifaceted DOD research program.
        The coalition recommends that Congress appropriate $25
    million to the Department of Defense budget for the DEPSCoR
    program in 2006. DEPSCoR was initially authorized in the 1995
    National Defense Authorization Act 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 to enhance the capability of institutions of higher
    education in DEPSCoR States to develop, plan, and execute
    science and engineering research that is competitive under the
    merit review system used for awarding Federal research
    assistance; and also to increase the probability of long-term
    growth in competitively awarded financial assistance that
    DEPSCoR universities receive for research.
        I would like now to briefly highlight a few DEPSCoR-funded
    success stories out of research projects that have and are
    presently contributing to our national defense interests. The
    University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology has
    conducted research on the central 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 has developed 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.
        At Montana State University, research is being conducted to
    protect pilots and sensors from attacks from laser weaponry.
    The University of Nevada researchers are working on a project
    to mitigate the noise in the drive systems of ships and
    submarines. North Dakota State University is conducting
    research aimed at lengthening the life of ship structures. This
    research, like the other research, will lead to significant
    savings in military spending on marine fuel, maintenance, and
    replacement of ships. Again, these are just a few of the
    examples of DEPSCoR-funded recent initiatives that are adding
    to our national body of knowledge on various national security
    issues.
        DEPSCoR awards are provided to the mission-oriented
    individual academic investigators to conduct research that has
    practical military applications. However, the program as
    currently implemented has not taken into account the
    significant benefits that can be derived from pooling
    individual investigators' efforts into the 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. The second component would award funding to
    mission-oriented centers. These centers of defense excellence
    would be interdisciplinary and would build defense capacity. We
    believe that $25 million could be broken out for $10 million
    obligated for the individual investigator awards and $15
    million for the mission-oriented centers.
        In conclusion, 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.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I assume Senator Inouye agrees with
    me, if we have the money we will continue to do it. But we do
    not know yet. The House has knocked $3.3 billion off. We do not
    know what our allocation is going to be, but assuming that we
    have the money to do so, we want to continue to support your
    programs.
        Mr. Hoehn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Jerome Odom, Distinguished Provost Emeritus,
       University of South Carolina on Behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR
                                     States

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this testimony regarding the Defense Department's
    basic scientific research program and the Defense Experimental Program
    to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR).
        My name is Jerome Odom. I am Distinguished Provost Emeritus and a
    Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry of the University of South
    Carolina. I am here today to speak in support of both the Defense
    Department's science and engineering research program and an important
    component of that research, the Defense Department's Experimental
    Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This statement is
    submitted on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States and the 21 States
    and Puerto Rico that participate in the Coalition.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, on behalf of the EPSCoR States, I
    want to thank the subcommittee for increasing DEPSCoR funding over the
    administration request for fiscal year 2005. This increase is a good
    first step to bringing funding up to a level that will enable
    researchers from EPSCoR States to offer quality research of direct
    benefit to the mission of the Department of Defense.
        The Coalition of EPSCoR States strongly supports the Department's
    budget request for basic research. The Defense EPSCoR program is a
    small, but significant, part of this larger program. The Coalition
    recommends that Congress appropriate $25 million to the Defense
    Department's budget for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research (Program Element PE 61114D).
        EPSCoR is a research and development program that was initiated by
    the National Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR
    is improving our Nation's science and technology capability by funding
    research activities of talented researchers at universities and non-
    profit organizations in States that historically have not received
    significant Federal research and development funding. EPSCoR helps
    researchers, institutions, and States improve the quality of their
    research capabilities in order to compete more effectively for non-
    EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is widely
    viewed as a ``model'' Federal-State partnership. EPSCoR seeks to
    advance and support the goals of the program through investments in
    four major areas: research infrastructure improvement; research cluster
    development and investigator-initiated research; education, career
    development and workforce training; and outreach and technology
    transfer.
        The Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Experimental Research
    (DEPSCoR) was initially authorized by Section 257 of the fiscal year
    1995 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 103-337). The
    Defense Department's EPSCoR program helps build national infrastructure
    for research and education by funding research activities in science
    and engineering fields important to national defense. DEPSCoR's
    objectives are to:
      --Enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education in
            eligible States to develop, plan, and execute science and
            engineering research that is competitive under the peer-review
            systems used for awarding Federal research assistance; and
      --Increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively
            awarded financial assistance that universities in eligible
            States receive from the Federal Government for science and
            engineering research.
        The Defense EPSCoR program contributes to the States' goals of
    developing and enhancing their research capabilities, while
    simultaneously supporting the research goals of the Department of
    Defense. DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR
    State committees and the Department's own evaluation and ranking.
    Research proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense
    Department with research in areas important to national defense. The
    DEPSCoR States have established an impressive record to research that
    has directly contributed to our Nation's security interests. If you
    will allow me, I would like to highlight some of DEPSCoR's success.
        In my State of South Carolina, researchers from Clemson University
    have produced communications protocols to enhance the effectiveness of
    radio networks on the battlefield. Researchers are focused on the
    development of protocols for mitigating the limitations of radio
    devices of widely disparate capabilities that will be required in
    future tactical communication networks used by the Army. The new
    technique will yield a significant improvement in performance and allow
    for more robust radio system operation for the Army. The University of
    South Carolina has completed a study to help the Navy revolutionize
    data processing methods for battlefield operations through the use of
    sophisticated mathematical techniques. Funded by the Navy, the research
    project, carried out at the internationally recognized Industrial
    Mathematics Institute of the University of South Carolina, develops
    state of the art compression methods that can be used in a variety of
    military scenarios including: automated target recognition, mission
    planning, post battlefield assessment, intelligence and counter
    intelligence.
        The University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology has
    conducted research into the central nervous system and the University's
    Institute of Northern Engineering and Water has conducted research into
    the measurement of soil moisture. Both studies have important Defense
    applications.
        The University of Hawaii at Manoa has developed tropical cyclone
    forecasts for the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), which is DOD's
    operational center for tropical cyclone (TC) forecasting for the
    Pacific and Indian Oceans. The project will develop new tropical
    cyclone forecasting capabilities in collaboration with the JTWC. The
    research is closely related to U.S. Navy research and operational
    needs. An important aspect of the project is to closely collaborate
    with the JTWC locally. This will enhance the cooperation between DOD's
    operational site and the State of Hawaii university research community.
        University of Alabama researchers have conducted important work to
    reducing gearbox noise in Army helicopters. By reducing the noise
    levels, the crew will be more alert and able to communicate more
    effectively while in such a vehicle, thus improving safe operation of
    the rotorcraft. Additionally, reducing structural vibrations can
    decrease fatigue damage in the rotorcraft.
        Montana State University has received funding from the Air Force
    conduct research into protecting pilots and sensors from attack from
    laser weaponry. This project is of particular interest for protecting
    pilots using Night Vision Goggles (NVG), for laser range finders and
    target designators.
        University of Nevada at Reno investigators are exploring novel
    military applications for non-lethal weaponry for use by the Air Force.
    This research could be used for ultimately developing ``stunning/
    immobilizing'' weapons that do not rely on chemicals and that do not
    cause human injury. University of Nevada researchers are working on a
    project to mitigate the noise in the drive systems of ships and
    submarines. The mitigation of noise and the accompanying vibration will
    significantly improve stealth performance of naval vessels.
        North Dakota State University obtained funding to develop
    mechanisms that allow the Navy's unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs) to
    carry out mission tasks with little external supervision and control.
    The development of this technology will lead to individual or teams of
    UAVs efficiently carrying out search, surveillance, reconnaissance, and
    delivery of weapons missions in the presence of enemy threat and
    without risk to the lives of military personnel. University of North
    Dakota researchers received Army funding to develop weather models for
    improving the availability of weather information worldwide.
    Improvements in satellite technology research will lead to a better
    forecasting tool that can be utilized by Army personnel to help
    maximize their advantage in a battlefield or homeland defense
    environment. North Dakota State obtained funding from the Navy to
    conduct a project to lengthen the life of ship structures. This
    research will lead to significant savings in military spending on
    marine fuel, maintenance and replacement of ships.
        University of Vermont researchers conducted a study to decompose
    chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas in a safe and
    environmentally sustainable system. This method is similar to one used
    in industry to remove toxic compounds from the smokestacks of coal-
    burning plants. This process can decompose nearly 100 percent of half
    mustard from a gas sample. The chemical by-products of this process are
    environmentally friendly and non-toxic. Similar technologies can be
    used to decompose sarin, soman, and VX simulants.
        Currently, DEPSCoR awards are provided to mission-oriented
    individual investigators from universities and other institutions of
    higher education. The individual investigators conduct extremely
    important 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 individual
    investigators pooling their efforts to provide ``centers'' of research
    that meet the ever increasing challenges and needs of the Department of
    Defense and the Services.
        Therefore, the DEPSCoR States propose restructuring the program
    into two components. The first component would retain the current
    program whereby the individual 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 mission
    oriented interdisciplinary areas to build defense research capacity.
        To achieve important defense research objectives of both the
    components of the program, the DEPSCoR States need the program to be
    funded at $25 million for fiscal year 2006 with approximately $10
    million obligated to the individual investigator awards and $15 million
    for the mission-oriented centers initiative. This twin approach to
    funding will significantly 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.
        The Defense Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce
    public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to
    efforts to build scientific and engineering research efforts in support
    of national defense needs.
        Finally, the Coalition of EPSCoR States believes a $25 million
    Defense EPSCoR program with the modifications suggested will ensure
    that Federal dollars are being used in a cost-effective way and that
    the EPSCoR States are contributing to the Nation's Defense efforts.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.

        Senator Stevens. Next witness, Major General Paul Weaver,
    Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR., U.S.
                AIR FORCE (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE
                JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION
                INTERNATIONAL
        General Weaver. Good afternoon, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Nice to see you again.
        General Weaver. Nice seeing you both, sir.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you on behalf of the Juvenile
    Diabetes Research Foundation. I am retired Major General Paul
    Weaver, former Director of the Air National Guard. I am here
    today to report on the success and continued progress of the
    technologies for metabolic monitoring, also known as the Julia
    Weaver Fund after my 6-year-old daughter. I would also like to
    thank you for your past support and encourage an additional $10
    million this year for this innovative program.
        Metabolic measuring research has had great successes and
    continuing progress as we work to understand metabolism and the
    lifesaving insight new technologies can provide for our
    warfighting men and women. Metabolic measuring truly holds the
    potential to improve and save lives. It will give our troops an
    immediate advantage when the unthinkable occurs.
        I ask you to imagine for a moment this all too real and
    common scenario. A soldier is wounded by an Iraqi insurgent
    mortar attack. With this technology's remote real-time capacity
    to provide an online window into the body, monitoring metabolic
    alterations, field surgeons will have the potential to
    immediately assess the extent of the soldier's injuries.
    Ultimately, metabolic measuring can be integrated with other
    automated medical devices and Objective Force warrior
    equipment, activating devices such as the automatic tourniquets
    or injections to respond appropriately to injuries even before
    medical help arrives.
        This amazing technology will ultimately allow soldiers to
    wear a uniform that will actually provide treatment on the
    spot. In the critical moments after an injury, metabolic
    measuring could treat injuries and give doctors at a field
    hospital miles away information to prepare for a soldier's
    specific wounds.
        While the possibility of such lifesaving measures through
    technologies from metabolic measuring is still on the horizon,
    we are moving closer and closer to this reality every day.
    Already there are excellent examples of metabolic measuring
    funded research like a gel that responds to the concentration
    of glucose in your tears by changing colors, allowing soldiers
    to survive and recover from injuries, making our armed forces
    stronger.
        In essence, metabolic measuring research will provide a
    real-time access to the warfighter's metabolic state, improved
    health and lifesaving measures for women and men in the
    military. Access to the soldier's real-time metabolic state
    will have an enormous impact, sir. The technology will enhance
    our knowledge of basic metabolism, enabling the military to
    tailor fundamental elements of training and nutrition and
    ultimately be able to tailor their medical care to not only
    improve their survival, but, almost as important, reduce their
    healing time and the long-term effects of their injuries.
        Congress' investment in this innovative technology and
    progressive approach has been vital to our national security
    and national health. A continued investment in this program
    will enable technologies for metabolic measuring partners, such
    as the Department of Defense, the NIH, NASA, and Juvenile
    Diabetes Research Foundation, to continue to develop and
    improve technologies to measure the physiology and the
    viability of our fighting men and women accurately,
    consistently, and non-evasively.
        I have seen firsthand the fruits of your investment:
    Velcro, global positioning system (GPS), and the Internet. With
    funding through your subcommittee, technologies for metabolic
    measuring has the potential to be this kind of innovative and
    even lifesaving tool.
        It is critical for your support of this lifesaving research
    by funding $10 million for technologies for metabolic
    measuring, the Julia Weaver Fund Initiative. Not only will this
    improve the lives of our soldiers and their families, but it
    will be a great step toward an even more personal wish for me
    and many families, a cure for juvenile diabetes. Giving my
    daughter even the possibility of a non-invasive option to her
    multiple shots each day and the potential of avoiding the
    devastating complications of diabetes, like blindness, kidney
    failure, and heart disease are promises that would provide hope
    to so many suffering with juvenile diabetes.
        Finally, sir, my son Brett is an 18 year old marine headed
    to Iraq. Please give him and all the men and women like him who
    are already there in the front lines absolutely the best chance
    to survive if the unthinkable occurs.
        Thank you for your time and your support, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. The best to your son.
        General Weaver. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Nice to see you again.
        General Weaver. Nice seeing you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Do you have a question, Senator?
        Senator Inouye. We will do our best.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr. (Ret.)

                                PROGRAM OVERVIEW

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to support $10 million in
    funding for the Technologies for Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund
    (TMM/JWF) Initiative on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research
    Foundation International.
        I am here to report on the great success and continued progress of
    the TMM program thanks to your past support of this innovative project.
    The TMM program is working to improve understanding of metabolism and
    subsequently develop monitoring technology to provide our military with
    critical information about the physiology and viability of soldiers in
    the field, and astronauts orbiting the earth, accurately, constantly
    and non-invasively. The real life application of this technology will
    offer healthcare professionals an online window into the body;
    information which can ultimately provide life saving insight.
        I am pleased to report that Congress's investment in this inventive
    technology and progressive approach to a vital national security, as
    well as national health need since fiscal year 2001, has yielded
    remarkable successes. We come before you this year to request an
    additional $10 million to elevate this research, and move it rapidly to
    the soldiers in the field who will benefit the most from the results of
    this exciting program. A continued investment in the program will
    enable TMM's partners--the Department of Defense, the National
    Institutes of Health and the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, as
    well as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the many TMM
    participants from academia, industry and government--to continue to
    develop and improve technologies to measure the physiology and
    viability of our fighting men and women.
        After 35 years of military service, including 8 years as the
    Director and Deputy Director of the Air National Guard, I am proud of
    the Department of Defense's long and distinguished tradition of funding
    research, driven by genuine mission necessity. While in uniform, I saw
    the benefits of your commitment to the brave who serve. As an American
    out of uniform, I know that the fruits of your investments yield some
    of the most used applications in American culture. Some items on this
    list are part of our American lexicon--Velcro, GPS and the Internet.
    The program I speak of today has the potential to join this list, but
    it won't just make lives easier, it has the potential to improve and
    save lives as well.

                          A CRITICAL BATTLEFIELD TOOL

        As we know all too well from the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan,
    providing our military's medical units with the most sophisticated
    cutting edge technology has significantly improved their ability to
    tackle battlefield trauma, ultimately saving the lives of our fighting
    men and women. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines wounded in
    Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are much more likely to survive their
    injuries today than in past wars. As recently reported by the Army News
    Service, only 1.6 percent of soldiers injured in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have died of their wounds. This
    is less than half the 3.68 percent death rate for wounded soldiers in
    Vietnam. The technologies developed by the TMM program will accelerate
    this trend.
        TMM will provide our soldiers with an immediate advantage when the
    worst occurs. Imagine the following all too real and common scenario: A
    soldier is wounded by an Iraqi insurgency's mortar attack. With the
    technology's remote real time capacity to monitor metabolic
    alterations, field surgeons will have the potential to assess the
    extent of his injuries in such an acute incident. TMM can be integrated
    with other automated medical devices in Objective Force Warrior
    equipment, activating devices such as automatic tourniquets or
    injections to respond appropriately to his injuries. ``Knowledge of the
    metabolic status of the warfighter, both prior to injury and during
    treatment, is vital to providing medical care. While in the past there
    have been numerous individual programs addressing various aspects of
    telemetry and metabolic monitoring, TMM has finally provided the
    opportunity to look at the whole issue end to end. We are especially
    excited about the opportunity to work more closely with our colleagues
    in NASA and NIH using the TMM program as a framework,'' said Colonel
    John Holcomb, Commander, U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research. It
    is this capability that will potentially have a truly dramatic impact
    on reduction of our died-of-wounds numbers, not to mention ultimately
    improving the long-term quality of life, as well as reducing the cost
    of our military's medical obligations to its veterans.
        TMM sensors also will have the potential to measure a soldier's
    metabolism in response to exertion, particularly in an environment of
    extreme heat. In another real scenario, this technology could direct an
    over-exerted soldier to take actions to optimize his performance, such
    as when and how much fluid to drink, or to consume a MRE specially
    formulated to optimize his performance for the task at hand. The
    sensors could also inform his commander that the soldier is too
    exhausted to make good decisions, protecting not only him but also the
    mission.
        Access to a soldier's real time metabolic state will have enormous
    impact. The technology will enhance our knowledge of basic metabolism,
    enabling the military to tailor fundamental elements of training,
    nutrition and soldier health and performance. and ultimately be able to
    tailor their medical care to not only improve their survival, but
    almost as important reduce their healing time and the long term effects
    of their injuries. Saving the warfighters life is of tantamount
    importance, but we must also reduce the impact of their injuries on the
    rest of their lives.
        According to Dr. Frazier Glenn, Technical Director, U.S. Army
    Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, ``current
    technology investments have been somewhat divergent and the overall
    metabolic research area needed some way to coalesce around a central
    effort. TMM has fulfilled that role admirably.'' As a result, the DOD
    research in this area is even more effective, with the assistance of
    the TMM program.

                 A STRONG INVESTMENT WITH DEMONSTRABLE RESULTS

        To demonstrate this program's dramatic success in the 5 years since
    its inception, in fiscal year 2001 the U.S. Army Medical Research and
    Materiel Command (USAMRMC), which manages this initiative, received 16
    applications and supported 5 novel metabolic monitoring research
    projects and a highly successful workshop. In fiscal year 2002, the
    program received $2.5 million in appropriations and was expanded to
    include academic, industry, civilian and defense researchers. As a
    result, 48 applications were received and following a highly
    competitive review, an additional 12 novel metabolic monitoring
    research projects received seed grants for 1 year. This year we have
    received nearly 60 proposals that have been reviewed by an expert
    scientific panel. The work of previously funded TMM researchers is
    among the highest scoring submissions. As this program continues to
    progress with the addition of an intramural component, we will utilize
    highly skilled laboratories with unique complementary skills, such a
    high-powered computer models of human disease, to realize the potential
    of these technologies to the benefit of both soldiers and civilians.
        A critical component of the success of this project has been a
    structure which emphasized and encouraged innovative thinking.
    Fostering such an atmosphere resulted in new discoveries, some of which
    built upon existing ideas, and others which took this promising
    research in bold new directions. As a result of our continued combined
    effort, the TMM program has brought several highly attractive
    technologies from the drawing board to successful laboratory and field
    demonstrations.
        Some of the intriguing examples of TMM-funded research include a
    polyacrylamide gel technology that responds to changes in the
    concentration of glucose in tear fluid by changing color--a high-tech
    contact lens if you will. In another project, researchers developed
    miniaturized implantable sensors, one of which wirelessly transmits
    glucose concentrations, and another measures multiple metabolites.
    Other projects included the development and validation of several
    portable devices to monitor the energy expended during physical
    activity, and determine the general energy costs of physical training
    in ROTC cadets.
        Now, it is time to build upon this investment. The TMM program is
    ready to begin to transition from a basic research focus to a
    development and implementation process in order to expedite the
    clinical application of technology sooner. We hope not only to continue
    the current exciting direction of the program, but also to have the
    resources to begin to expand and truly maximize some of our real
    successes.
        In addition to the work we have been doing, in partnership with
    DOD, NASA and NIH's academic and industrial partners in all 50 States,
    we hope to refine, manufacture and begin testing these technologies so
    they may rapidly enter the developmental and approval pipeline. Our
    goal is to create centrally organized programs that can utilize the
    strengths of the many facilities that can support this effort. This
    will be done in addition to our continued efforts to ensure a constant
    supply of new and novel capabilities.

                  PROGRAMMATIC SUCCESS WILL HAVE A BROAD REACH

        There is no question that TMM holds great promise and is a superb
    investment for our soldiers in the field. Just like numerous other
    Defense Department programs before it, this technology teems with
    potential for those out of uniform.
        As a military man, I am optimistic about the real life application
    of this technology for our fighting men and women, but I must be honest
    that my real passion for this research is my daughter Julia. One month
    after my retirement from military service, my wife and I took our 2\1/
    2\-year-old daughter Julia to the emergency room at Mary Washington
    Hospital in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a day that truly changed our
    lives. Prior to that day, we had been told Julia had the flu. Her
    condition continued to worsen. On New Years Day morning, we noticed a
    severe degradation with her overall health. She lost 10 pounds in 1
    week and was losing mental awareness of her surroundings. We proceeded
    to the emergency room at Mary Washington Hospital where we were told,
    after her blood was tested, that she had developed juvenile diabetes.
    Julia, whom we call ``The Precious'', was transported by a helicopter
    ambulance to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center. As the chopper lifted off, I could never explain the
    feeling in our hearts that we may never see our little girl alive
    again.
        She was in the Intensive Care Ward for approximately 2 days and
    then moved to a regular ward after her condition became stable. The
    great medical staff at Walter Reed saved her life and for that, my wife
    and I will be eternally grateful. My daughter's daily regimen with
    juvenile diabetes consists of having her finger pricked 6-8 times a day
    and receiving 2-4 shots a day. I made a commitment to God that if I
    could ever do anything to help find a cure for diabetes, I would do it.

                            THE PROMISE FOR DIABETES

        What you must know about the promise of this research effort as it
    applies to diabetes is that it offers more than an improvement in a
    diabetic's quality of life. As a parent, the simple act of eliminating
    the daily regimen of the 6 to 8 finger pricks and 2 to 4 shots my
    daughter endures would be a great relief. TMM offers the potential to
    replace this painful routine and provide a more complete picture of the
    disease. The real benefit of TMM is its ability to greatly reduce--or
    ideally eliminate--the daily risk of the diabetic emergencies of
    hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and most significantly, the long term
    damage caused by the fluctuations in blood glucose. JDRF reports that
    on average, the life expectancy of a child with type 1 diabetes is
    shortened by 15 years because of this long-term damage. As Julia's
    father, this is a statistic I cannot accept.
        Anyone who has a loved one with this disease, or has the disease
    him or herself, knows the difficulties of controlling ever-fluctuating
    glucose levels with insulin and diet. Current technology is good but it
    is extremely difficult to maintain tight control of blood glucose
    levels, especially over long periods of time. New and improved
    technologies would help to ward off the devastating complications, such
    as blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease, and nerve
    damage, which are often the inevitable result of a lifetime with this
    disease.
        Technologies that would non-invasively monitor a diabetic's
    metabolism, coupled with an ability to provide information remotely (or
    wirelessly), would allow individuals with the disease to monitor their
    blood sugar levels accurately, constantly, and non-invasively, which
    could ultimately improve the control of fluctuations in their blood
    glucose levels and potentially reduce the severity of debilitating
    complications. In this way, this technology could offer a significant
    and immediate improvement in the quality of life of 18 million
    Americans who suffer from this disease and relieve much of the economic
    burden of this disease on our Nation.

                     APPLICATION IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

        Insulin resistance and hyperglycemia often accompany the critical
    injuries and illnesses of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU),
    placing them at high risk for multiple organ failure and death. TMM
    could have a profound impact for these people as well. Recent studies
    show that preventing hyperglycemia by maintaining insulin levels
    substantially improves outcomes for these critically ill patients. TMM
    holds the potential to improve glycemic control in injured soldiers and
    other ICU patients that could ultimately be implemented in every
    hospital's intensive care unit, saving countless lives.

                                   CONCLUSION

        JDRF and I thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee
    for your generous funding of this program, which allowed it to prosper
    into a unique and successful initiative. The attached research
    summaries demonstrate the high level of innovation that has been
    pursued with these funds. I respectfully ask that you continue your
    strong support for this initiative by providing $10 million for fiscal
    year 2006. This funding will allow the U.S. Army Medical Research and
    Materiel Command (USAMRMC), in combination with its partners at NASA,
    the NIH and JDRF to capitalize on the opportunities provided by the
    previous 5 years of funding. Such funding will enable this truly
    unconventional consortium to expand this initiative, and transition
    from development to evaluation and application of these novel
    technologies in soldiers in the field and patients in the clinic.
        This subcommittee is faced with difficult choices as it looks to
    stretch limited resources in a way that makes our military more lethal,
    robust and sustaining. I urge you to recognize the promise of this
    program to protect our most valuable asset, the men and women in
    uniform, when they need it most, which is following an injury. The
    science and technology in the TMM initiative is real; it holds the
    promise to assist wounded warriors immediately in times of trauma, and
    to optimize war fighter performance when it is most needed. While the
    health care cost savings it offers are significant, the cost of the
    lives, and the improvement in their quality, is truly incalculable.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

                           TMM/JWF PROGRAM SUCCESSES

        Development of a mouse/mammalian model for test and validation of
    implantable glucose sensors. This is vital to allow the progress of
    implantable research to move forward. TMM allowed this vital base-line
    infrastructure work to occur that will have wide ranging impact on many
    technology and research efforts that would not have been nearly as
    effective without it.
        Numerous papers and research into Iontophoresis and other non-
    invasive/minimally invasive techniques of analysis and extraction of
    glucose and other analytes for assessment of metabolism.
        Acceleration of research in implantable sensors to apply to
    numerous applications, including glucose monitoring. TMM allowed
    significant forward movement and acceleration in various industrial
    programs leading to earlier commercialization, and thereby more rapid
    move to the public of new techniques and devices.
        TMM initiative has sharpened the focus and galvanizing the relevant
    research and development community in developing techniques for
    continuous monitoring of metabolic status in day-to-day activities,
    vital data to determine the effectiveness of new sensors and systems.
    This has led to seminal publications in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals to establish the technical foundations and, in conjunction
    with industrial collaborators, the beginnings of translation of the
    technology from the university research lab to the hands of the public.
    As a result of TMM, there are clear prospects for novel implantable
    sensors that can be of use in a variety of metabolic monitoring
    situations in the next several years.
        TMM allowed the development and validation of several portable
    techniques for monitoring the amount of physical activity and its
    associated energy expenditure, and to determine the general energy
    costs of physical training in ROTC cadets. The TMM program has
    successfully completed tests in April of 2004, and is in the active
    process of analyzing the abundant data that was ascertained.
        TMM funded research toward developing and characterizing a
    minimally invasive near-infrared fluorescence affinity glucose sensor
    for transdermal monitoring of subdermal interstitial fluid in diabetics
    and soldiers (fitness control). TMM allowed the successful completion
    of the optimization of a sensor in-vitro under simulated body
    conditions. The excellent long-term stability data of the TMM sensor,
    which performed satisfactorily over a period of 6 months on the
    benchtop, can be considered to be a scientific breakthrough in the
    field of optical affinity sensors for glucose monitoring.

                TMM INVESTIGATORS--BRIEF PROJECT SUMMARIES 2004

        Sanford Asher, Ph.D.--University of Pittsburgh, Department of
    Chemistry.--(a) Novel Approaches to Glucose Sensing Based on
    Polymerized Crystalline Colloidal Array Hydrogel Sensors; (b) Fabricate
    superparamagnetic particle hydrogels responsive to glucose which will
    report on the interstitial glucose concentration noninvasively through
    a magneto-acoustic response; (c) Interstitial measurement; (d)
    Implantable; (e) Particles will have a natural frequency of oscillation
    which is glucose dependent; (f) Oscillating particles will generate an
    ultrasonic acoustic response which we detect by a piezoelectric
    transducer.
        Ralph Ballerstadt, Ph.D., Biotex, Inc.--(a) Implantable
    Fluorescence Sensor For in vivo Glucose Monitoring; (b) Fluorescent
    properties of the sensor will vary in response to local glucose
    concentrations.
        Diane J. Burgess, Ph.D.--University of Connecticut.--(a)
    Miniaturized, Wireless, Implantable Glucose Sensors; (b) With the help
    of fiscal year 2002 TMM-support: assembled an interdisciplinary team
    who designed, built and tested various components of a miniaturized,
    wireless-integrated and totally-implantable glucose sensor; (c)
    Development of an advanced hydrogel coating containing tissue response
    modifiers (TRMs) capable of minimizing inflammation, preventing fibrous
    encapsulation and promoting neovascularization; (d) Glucose-oxidase
    technology; (e) Implanted, wireless technology.
        Matthew R. Glucksberg, Ph.D.--Northwestern University.--(a)
    Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Monitoring Lactate and Glucose;
    (b) Raman spectroscopy: powerful analytical tool that permits the
    unambiguous identification of molecules based on their unique
    vibrational modes; (c) Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS)
    phenomenon increases by up to a trillion fold the Raman signal from
    molecules near gold and silver nanoscale materials; (d) Project aims to
    develop and test these SERS active substrates on the tip of an
    indwelling, percutaneously implanted fiber optic probe.
        Krzysztof C. Kwiatkowski, Ph.D.--Lynntech, Inc.--(a) A New Non-
    Invasive Continuous Glucose Sensor; (b) Micro-needle arrays created by
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as the basis for a
    glucose sensor; (c) Interstitial fluid glucose measurement; (d) Similar
    to CGMS, but with new micro-needle technology.
        Joseph Y. Lucisano, Ph.D.--GlySens, Inc.--(a) Dependable Detection
    and Warning of Hypoglycemia; (b) A very small, sensor array that can be
    inserted through a needle into the subcutaneous tissues of healthy
    individuals and that can be retrieved after 2 weeks of intensive
    monitoring; (c) A larger, disc-shaped version of the sensor array for
    long-term (1 year) implantation, especially in diabetic children to
    detect and warn of hypoglycemia; (d) Sensors indicative of the
    metabolic state, including sensors for glucose, oxygen, lactate,
    temperature, heart rate, breathing rate and physical activity.
        Michael Pishko--Penn State, Dept Chemical Engineering.--(a)
    Microfabricated Multianalyte Sensor Arrays for Metabolic Monitoring;
    (b) Electrochemical biosensors based on redox polymer/enzyme thin films
    fabricated using conventional wafer fabrication technologies; (c)
    Implantable.
        J. Bruce Pitner, Ph.D.--Becton, Dickinson and Company.--(a) Real-
    Time Energy Metabolite Monitoring Developing in vivo Sensors for
    Glucose, Fatty Acids, and Lactate; (b) Fluorophore-labeled binding
    proteins specific to metabolites such as glucose, lactate, and fatty
    acids; (c) Fluorophores are located at the binding site of the protein.
    Upon ligand attachment, the binding site undergoes conformational
    changes, which causes changes of the fluorescence response of the
    labeled dye.
        Leah Tolsa, Ph.D.--University of Maryland Baltimore County.--(a)
    Low-Cost Portable System for Multianalyte Metabolic Monitoring; (b)
    Specific binding of each analyte to a corresponding binding protein. A
    sample of set volume is pumped into a microfluidic cassette, diluted
    accordingly, and channeled into three chambers containing the protein
    biosensors; (c) Proteins will be labeled with an environment-sensitive
    fluorophore (acrylodan) at a site that responds to analyte binding.

                                      2003

        Tadeusz M. Drzewiecki, Ph.D.--Defense Research Technologies, Inc.--
    (a) Non-Invasive Metabolic Monitoring Using a Breath-by-Breath
    Microfluidic Gas Monitoring System.
        Jeffrey I. Joseph, D.O.--Thomas Jefferson University.--(a)
    Artificial Pancreas for Control of BG and Insulin Levels in
    Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes and Stress Hyperglycemia; (b)
    MiniMed technologies--with inclusion of 3 rather than 1 sensor and
    intravenous monitoring.
        Thomas Joseph--Becton Dickinson Technologies.--(a) Indwelling
    Metabolite Sensors for Optical Reading Through Skin: A Platform Based
    on NIR Dyes Conjugated to Binding Proteins: NIR Fluorescent Dyes
    conjugated to binding proteins.
        David Gough--University of California, San Diego.--(a)
    Implementation of Implantable Disc, long-lived lactate sensor, monitor
    heart and breathing into animal models.
        Donald Kreutzer--University of Connecticut.--(a) Uses of
    Neovascularization to Enhance Glucose Sensor Function In Vivo: Local
    delivery of angiogenic factors to enhance glucose sensor function; (b)
    Role of Macrophages in the Function and Lifespan of Glucose Sensors In
    Vivo.
        Michael J. McShane, Ph.D.--Louisiana Tech University.--(a) Novel
    Micro/Nano Approaches for Glucose Measurement Using pH-Sensitive
    Hydrogels: pH-sensitive microgels for glucose measurement.
        Jackie Y. Ying, Ph.D.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.--(a)
    Glucose-Responsive Nanoparticles for Controlled Insulin Delivery.

                                      2002

        Daniel Moran, Institute of Military Physiology, Israel.--(a) Non-
    invasive metabolic rate monitor and predict energy expenditure.
        Kong Chen, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.--(a) Non-invasive
    physical activity monitor, predict energy expenditure, determine energy
    costs and physiological responses.
        Richard Guy, University of Geneva, Switzerland.--(a) Transdermal
    ionophoretic metabolic monitoring.
        Ralph Ballerstadt, Biotex, Inc.--(a) Minimally invasive nearIR
    fluorescent polymer sensor for transdermal glucose monitoring.
        Diane Burgess, University of Connecticut.--(a) Autonomous sensory
    device, low-power CMOS microelectronics, glucose oxidase based,
    improved stability via coatings.
        David Gough, University of California, San Diego.--(a) Implantable
    Disc, multi-sensor array.
        Stuart Harshbarger, Johns Hopkins University.--(a) Metabolic
    activity at wound site, prediction of wound healing.
        James Mansfield, Hypermed, Inc., Watertown MA.--(a) Hyperspectral
    Imaging, focal changes in cutaneous hemoglobin.
        Bradley Nindl, Military Performance, U.S. Army Research Institute
    of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts.--(a) Non-invasive
    IGF-1 monitoring during warfighter training, interstitial micropore
    measurement.
        Kenneth W. Ward, iSense Corporation.--(a) 300 m wire sensor for
    continuous amperometric monitoring of glucose and lactose.
        Babak Ziaie, U. of Minnesota.--(a) Hydrogel-based implantable
    micromachined transponder for wireless glucose measurement.

                                      2001

        Jerome Shultz, NASA-AMES Research Center.--(a) Non-invasive,
    physiological evaluation system.
        Bradley Nindl, Military Performance, U.S. Army Research Institute
    of Environmental Medicine.--(a) IGF-I and IGFBP-3 analysis--Filter
    Paper Spot Assay.
        Amanda O'Donnell, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.--(a)
    Telemetric Device, heart rate variability, non-invasive assessment of
    operational performance.
        Kaveh Zamani, Medical Research and Materiel Command.--(a) Real-time
    stress monitoring, non-invasive, stress hormone.
        Motilal Pamanani, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement
    of Military Medicine.--(a) Interstitial vs. Intravascular changes in
    hemorrhagic shock.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness, Dr. Harry Armen,
    President of the American Association of Mechanical Engineers.
    Yes, sir.

    STATEMENT OF HARRY ARMEN, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
                SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
        Dr. Armen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I
    am Harry Armen and I serve as the elected President of the
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), a 120,000-
    member professional engineering society founded in 1880. I am
    an engineer with over 40 years of experience in defense
    aerospace.
        Engineers are a major part of this Nation's technology
    base, a base that is essential for defense and for our economic
    vitality. We therefore appreciate the opportunity to appear
    before your subcommittee to present our views on the DOD
    science, engineering, and technology programs, the S&T
    programs.
        I want to specifically thank the subcommittee and
    especially you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for your past
    and ongoing support you have shown for these programs. A stated
    goal of this administration and Congress is to maintain defense
    S&T funding at 3 percent of the overall defense budget. That
    level would require $13.4 billion for fiscal year 2006. We urge
    you to support this level of funding for the S&T programs.
        While we appreciate your continued support for the overall
    program, we remain very concerned about critical shortages in
    specific DOD S&T areas, particularly in those that support
    basic research, the 6.1 account. And we are concerned about the
    trends for funding for scientific and technical education.
    Basic research supports science and engineering research and
    technical education at universities in all 50 States. Many of
    the technically talented engineers who have developed and are
    developing our current weapons systems received funding for
    their education as a result of working on basic research
    projects and other programs funded by DOD that promoted
    technical education. On a personal level, I am a product of the
    National Defense Education Act of 1961.
        In the early 1980s basic research was 20 percent of S&T
    funding. That level has declined to 12 percent. The
    technological superiority our young men and women in the
    services have been given in the campaigns in Afghanistan and
    Iraq were a direct result of investments made in science and
    technology several decades ago. We strongly encourage this
    subcommittee to reverse the declining trend and support robust
    investment in basic research.
        We also urge the members of the subcommittee to support
    advanced technical education. As the need for a more highly
    skilled workforce which includes a higher percentage of
    individuals with master's and doctoral degrees increases and
    the available technical workforce decreases, corporations that
    must hire engineers who are U.S. citizens and have appropriate
    security clearances will be faced with critical shortages.
        These shortages are a result of our own students declining
    to pursue careers in engineering and science, compounded by the
    fact that almost 60 percent of the current civilian science and
    technology defense workforce will be eligible for retirement or
    early retirement within the next 5 years.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we have a
    serious problem. The questions that must be addressed are the
    following: Will the United States, which is now dependent upon
    foreign suppliers for our energy and foreign financial
    resources to underwrite our deficits, also be dependent on
    foreign sources for science and engineering knowledge?
        The second question: Will this Nation be the leader or just
    an observer in the next technological revolution, involving the
    confluence of bio, nano, and information technologies? That
    confluence will result in remarkable breakthroughs that will
    alter virtually every aspect of our lives. Or as Al Jolson once
    said, ``You ain't seen nothing yet.''
        In summary, I urge the members of the subcommittee to
    continue your support to strengthen DOD's science and tech
    programs. It will take a great deal of continued attention and
    a commitment to defense research and development (R&D) to
    ensure that the best engineering and scientific minds are once
    again willing to apply their talents to meeting the future
    defense needs of this Nation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, doctor. We are
    pleased to have you appear before us.
        Senator Inouye?
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. We appreciate your comments. Thank you.
        Dr. Armen. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Harry Armen

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the
    ASME Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force of the Committee on Federal
    Research and Development is pleased to comment on the fiscal year 2006
    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.
        ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering Society serving a
    membership of 120,000. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
    publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
    professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial
    and manufacturing standards. The work of the Society is performed by
    its member-elected Board of Governors through five Councils, 44 Boards,
    and hundreds of Committees operating in 13 regions throughout the
    world.
        This task force is comprised 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.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on these areas that
    are critical to the national security and economic vitality of the
    United States. This subcommittee under your leadership has shown strong
    support for maintaining growth in Defense Research and Engineering in
    general and more specifically in Defense Science and Technology
    funding. We understand that Congress is faced with a more highly
    constrained budget environment this year and that there are many areas
    where increased funding could provide benefits. However, these Science
    and Technology accounts not only contribute directly to national
    security by creating the technology that will be inserted into our next
    generation of weapon systems, they also contribute through direct
    benefits, such as workforce development, job creation, and economic
    growth which are also vital to a strong national defense.
        Our testimony addresses three primary funding areas: overall
    Engineering (RDT&E); Science and Technology (S&T); and the University
    Research Initiative (URI). In addition, the consequences of inadequate
    funding for defense research are outlined. These include a degraded
    competitive position in developing advanced military technology versus
    potential peer competitors. This could have profound consequences to
    the United States' economic and military position in the world.
        The fiscal year 2006 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, $13.4 billion, or
    about $2.9 billion above the President's Request is required just to
    maintain inflation adjusted level funding.

                             DOD REQUEST FOR RDT&E

        The administration requested $69.356 billion for the Research,
    Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) portion of the fiscal year
    2006 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 $69.199 billion of about 0.2 percent.
    Therefore, when adjusted for inflation, this represents a reduction of
    about 2 percent in real terms. One of the largest percentage cuts is in
    the Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) function, where the proposed
    funding of $168 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 2006 budget, the
    task force notes that the multi-year spending plan, 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 14 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.
        In recent years, the task force has supported the overall RDT&E
    request. However, this request falls short in meeting requirements and
    hence we request that the top line RDT&E be increased to $73.1 billion.
    The specific areas that most need augmentation will be addressed in
    subsequent sections. While no specific recommendation on OT&E funding
    is provided, the committee should consider the level of funding
    required to ensure that the approximately $70 billion worth of weapon
    systems that the Department is procuring are adequately tested and
    shown to be safe and effective.

                     DOD REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        The fiscal year 2006 budget request for Defense Science and
    Technology (S&T) is $10.522 billion, which is $2.549 billion less than
    the fiscal year 2005 appropriated amount of $13.069 and represents a
    19.5 percent reduction. The S&T portion of overall DOD spending of $419
    billion would fall to 2.5 percent with this request. 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 3 percent for S&T programs. Clearly, this budget
    request moves the country in the wrong direction, by reducing S&T
    funding.
        A relatively small fraction of the RDT&E budget is allocated for
    S&T programs. Specifically, the S&T request for $10.522 billion
    represents only about 15 percent of the RDT&E total, but these accounts
    support all of the new knowledge creation, invention and technology
    developments for the military. These S&T funds support 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 $1.513 billion to
    $1.318 billion, a 12.9 percent decline. While these basic research
    accounts comprise less than 12 percent of the S&T budget and less than
    2 percent of the RTD&E total, the programs that these accounts support
    are critically important to fundamental, scientific advances and to the
    generation of 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 defense-oriented, 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 the future defense needs of this country. 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 the level of $1.6 billion.
        Applied Research (6.2) would be reduced from $4.849 billion to
    $4.139 billion, a 14.6 percent reduction. The programs supported by
    these accounts are generally intended to take basic scientific
    knowledge, perhaps phenomena discovered under the basic research
    programs, and apply them to important defense needs. These programs may
    involve laboratory proof-of-concept and are generally conducted at
    universities, government laboratories, or by small businesses. Many of
    the successful demonstrations create or foster small companies, such as
    those done in 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. Many small companies that fuel job growth in many states
    obtained their start in defense programs, but later broadened their
    markets. However, without initial support many of these companies would
    not exist. Failure to properly invest in applied research would prevent
    many ideas for devices from being tested in the laboratory, and would
    stunt the creation and growth of small entrepreneurial companies.
        The largest reduction would occur in Advanced Technology
    Development (6.3), which would experience a 24.5 percent decline, from
    $6.707 billion to $5.046 billion. These resources support programs that
    develop technology to the point that they are ready 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 21.6 percent, Applied Research by 39.9
    percent, and Advanced Technology Development by 45.4 percent. The only
    major S&T component with an increase is ``Defense-Wide'' Applied
    Research (6.2) where a 2.8 percent increase is proposed, mainly due to
    a 3.6 percent increase for the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA), an increase we strongly endorse.
        We urge this subcommittee to support an appropriation of $13.4
    billion for S&T programs, which is 3 percent of the overall fiscal year
    2005 DOD budget. This request is consistent with recommendations
    contained in the 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.

            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
    $46.1 million decrease from $294.2 million in fiscal year 2005 to
    $248.1 million next year, a 15.7 percent reduction. While these amounts
    are small in comparison with the overall defense budget, they are
    critical to educating the next generation of engineers and scientist
    for the defense industry. Lack of funding for the URI will prevent or
    discourage students from pursuing careers in defense related
    technologies. This will have a serious long-term negative consequence
    on the ability of companies to hire highly skilled scientific and
    engineering workforce to build weapons systems in the years to come.
        DOD has shown a lack of commitment to these programs, first by
    devolving these programs to the services 3 years ago and over the last
    2 years not maintaining adequate funding. The reduction in funding will
    directly translate into fewer Americans having an opportunity to pursue
    advanced study in engineering, science, and mathematics, and therefore
    will reduce the pool of qualified workers with advanced technical
    skills for companies that design and manufacture defense systems.
        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.
        The task force recommends that the subcommittee support advanced
    technical education and provide $325 million to the URI program for
    fiscal year 2006.

              REDUCED S&T FUNDING IS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

        Since World War II the United States has led the world in science,
    innovation, and defense technology. This preeminent position in
    science, engineering and technology has made us an economic and
    military superpower, second to none. However, this lead is quickly
    eroding and within the next few years may be substantially reduced or
    may completely evaporate in some areas. Many European and Asian
    countries are educating far more engineers and scientists per capita
    and investing a greater portion of gross domestic product (GDP) in
    basic research and innovation than is the United States. If these
    trends continue, the United States, which relies heavily on advanced
    technology for military superiority, may find its dominant military
    position compromised. In the longer term the United States may become a
    second tier economic and military power.
        A recent study performed by the Task Force on the Future of
    American Innovation, entitled ``The Knowledge Economy: Is the United
    States Losing Its Competitive Edge'' evaluated the position of the
    United States in several critical measures of technology, innovation,
    and scientific workforce development. While the report indicated that
    the United States maintains a slight lead in research and discovery,
    there was concern expressed that, ``Nations from Europe and Eastern
    Asia are on the fast track to pass the United States in scientific
    excellence and technological innovation''.
        The report compared the United States to other advanced, industrial
    countries in education, science and engineering workforce, scientific
    knowledge, innovation (as measured by the number of patent
    applications), investment in R&D, and trade balances in high technology
    goods and services.
        Of all the measures considered the United States fared worst in the
    state of technical education. The United States already lags most
    advanced countries in several important measures of natural science and
    engineering education. These findings are supported by a 2002 Rand
    report titled, ``Federal Investment in R&D'', which noted that,
    ``numerous competitor nations have made greater advances than the
    United States in terms of developing human resources for science and
    technology. Many countries in the European Union and Asia have exceeded
    U.S. degree production in the natural sciences and engineering. Europe
    overtook the United States in degree production in 1988 and has stayed
    ahead, and Asia pulled ahead in 1998. During this same period, U.S.
    degree attainment in these fields has declined.'' Currently 5.7 percent
    of U.S. bachelor degrees are in engineering or natural science. In
    European and developed or developing Asian counties this ranges from
    about 8 to 13 percent. For science and engineering doctoral degrees,
    which are becoming widely needed in industries that use advanced
    technology, the U.S. share of the worldwide total has been steadily
    decreasing. In 2000 only 22 percent of all doctoral degrees in
    engineering and natural science were awarded by American universities.
    This has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1970's.
        A useful measure of knowledge creation and the generation of new
    ideas is the number of technical papers published. The total number of
    U.S. publications has been nearly flat over the last 15 years. However,
    other countries have seen steady, and in some cases remarkable growth.
    Therefore, the U.S. share of worldwide technical papers published has
    fallen from 38 percent in 1988 to 31 percent in 2001. The EU countries
    when taken in total now lead in this area, accounting for 36 percent of
    world wide scientific publications. Asian countries, while still far
    behind at only 17 percent of the total, have experienced the most rapid
    growth in this category, more than doubling their output in the past 15
    years. These countries will surpass the United States in about 6 years
    if current trends continue.
        One area where the United States maintains a lead over developing
    Asian countries is in total R&D investment. Currently the United States
    invests over $250 billion in combined private and public financed R&D
    compared with about $100 billion for China, Singapore, South Korea, and
    Taiwan. However, even in this area the gap is rapidly closing. If
    current trends persist, the combined R&D expenditures of these
    countries will match the United States by about 2015. One of these
    reasons is the relatively slow growth in U.S. R&D funding. In 1970
    about 0.1 percent of the GDP was invested in engineering and physical
    science research, mostly in the defense area. This proportion has
    steadily decreased and by 2000 less than half this much, or 0.05
    percent of GDP, was allocated to research in these areas.
        Finally the report compared U.S. balance of trade in advanced
    technology products, such aircraft, computers, communications
    equipment, pharmaceuticals, and precision and optical instruments. In
    1990 the United States had a $30 to $40 billion trade surplus in these
    industries. This situation has steadily eroded to the point that in
    2003 the United States ran a trade deficit in high technology products
    of nearly $30 billion. One of the consequences of the growing economic
    power of China, which is increasing based on higher technology
    industries and an increasingly educated technical work force, is that
    China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading recipient
    of foreign direct investment (FDI).
        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. In order to have this
    capability, a native, skilled, scientific and engineering work force is
    required. There is a growing and alarming trend in many commercial
    industries to outsource engineering and other high-skilled service
    activities to foreign workers. In the past outsourcing was largely
    driven by cost considerations and was limited to low-cost, low-skilled
    workers. However, there is an emerging trend to outsource highly
    skilled engineering workforce products such as software and systems
    design and integration. A U.S.-based defense contractor cannot rely on
    engineers and scientists in other countries. Domestic content
    legislation for defense procurement makes little or no sense if the
    foremost scientists, engineers and manufacturers of sophisticated
    defense systems ultimately reside outside the United States. As the
    need for a more highly skilled workforce, which includes a higher
    percentage of employees with Masters and Doctoral level technical
    educations, increases, and the available technical workforce decreases,
    corporations that must hire engineers who are U.S. Citizens with the
    appropriate security clearances, will be faced with serious shortages.
    A critical issue to be faced is: Will the United States, now dependent
    on foreign energy sources and finances to underwrite our deficits, now
    be dependent on foreign sources for scientific and engineering
    leadership?
        We believe that protectionist measures will not be able to serve
    the long-term policy objective of having the capability to design,
    develop, and manufacture defense systems within the United States. In
    order to assure this capability, sufficient manpower, particularly
    those with the critical skills needed for creating advanced defense
    systems, needs to be available in sufficient numbers in the United
    States. Therefore, prudent investments in programs that create a
    robust, domestic supply of engineers and scientist with masters and
    doctoral level educations are in the national interest. Demographic
    data indicate that participation of U.S. students in science and
    engineering students will continue to decline. Retirements of
    scientists and engineers currently in the workforce will accelerate
    over the coming years. This will create a critical shortage of American
    citizens able to create the innovative, effective defense systems of
    the future.
        As Congress considers the allocation of resources in the fiscal
    year 2006 defense appropriations, proper attention to the vital role
    that S&T plays in future innovations and defense workforce should be
    considered. There are critical shortages in the DOD S&T areas,
    particularly in those that support in basic research and technical
    education. These programs protect the stability of the Nation's defense
    base, will lead to technological superiority in future weapons systems,
    and educate new generations of scientists and engineers, who maintain
    our position as the world's technological leader.
        Study after study has linked over 50 percent of our economic growth
    over the past 50 years to technological innovation. U.S. leadership in
    technological innovation is being seriously threatened by the
    accelerating pace of investments by other nations in R&D, their
    innovative capacity and their efforts in technical workforce
    development. All of these trends are occurring within the framework of
    an increasingly competitive global economy.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Leadership in engineering research, education and practice is a
    prerequisite to global leadership in technology innovation. A soon-to-
    be released National Academy of Engineering report entitled ``Assessing
    the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise'' provides a
    roadmap for balancing the Federal R&D portfolio and re-establishing
    basic engineering research as a priority for this Nation. We strongly
    urge this committee to review the recommendations outlined in this
    report, particularly those pertaining to discovery-innovation
    institutes, strengthening linkages between industry and research
    universities, and human capital. The report is available at http://
    www.nae.edu/NAE/engecocom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-68JK55/$File/
    Engineering%20Research.pdf.
        In conclusion, we thank the subcommittee for its ongoing strong
    support of Defense S&T. The Task Force believes that proposed funding
    levels are inadequate and the increased investments that are outlined
    are necessary and will make a vital contribution to our national
    security and to a stronger, more vibrant economy.
        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 the Committee on Federal R&D of the Council on
    Engineering and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is William Destler of the
    University of Maryland, is that correct? Is it ``Doctor
    Destler?''

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. DESTLER, Ph.D., PROVOST,
                UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, ON
                BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
                UNIVERSITIES
        Dr. Destler. It is.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Destler. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye: I am here to
    represent the American Association of Universities (AAU), which
    consists of 60 prominent public and private universities that
    together conduct about 60 percent of all federally sponsored
    research and produce about half of the Nation's Ph.D.'s each
    year.
        I want to thank the two of you and the rest of the
    subcommittee for your past strong support of defense science
    and technology research efforts. I think it is no surprise to
    any of us that in the United States the combined research
    capabilities of our Federal laboratories, including our DOD
    labs, together with our corporate research assets, which are
    frankly in decline, and those in our research universities,
    represent one of our last unfair advantages over potential
    adversaries abroad. Spinoffs from defense science and
    technology, moreover, have resulted in the introduction of many
    new products and services in the private sector and are a key
    element in the maintenance of our national standard of living.
        So as the subcommittee begins its work on the fiscal year
    2006 defense appropriations bill, the AAU offers two major
    recommendations. One, strengthen support for basic research in
    defense science and technology. Funding for 6.1 research has
    steadily declined over the last decade, despite the fact that
    basic research is the seed corn that leads to technological
    superiority in defense systems. It is this technological
    superiority that has materially shortened military conflicts in
    which the United States has engaged in recent years and saved
    the lives of countless U.S. citizens.
        Funding for 6.1 basic research, moreover, is a two-fer. It
    not only engages our top scientists and engineers nationwide in
    support of national defense interests, but it also supports the
    training of tomorrow's experts in these critical disciplines.
        Second, the AAU supports the full funding of DOD's new
    National Defense Education Act phase I initiative, a program
    that many years ago benefited our previous speaker. In recent
    years the United States has failed to attract enough of its own
    best students to study in areas of critical importance to our
    national security. The new National Defense Education Act is
    intended to provide scholarships and fellowships to
    undergraduates and graduate students entering critical fields
    such as science, mathematics, engineering and foreign languages
    in return for a commitment of national service after completion
    of their studies--a perfect match in my opinion.
        The AAU therefore fully supports the funding of the $10.3
    million requested for this program in fiscal year 2006 and
    recommends a greatly expanded program in fiscal year 2007 if
    funding will permit.
        I am very grateful for the chance to speak to you today
    and, as you know, I am a very efficient speaker and I will give
    you a little bit of time back.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of William W. Destler

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am William W.
    Destler, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost,
    University of Maryland, College Park. I appear before you today on
    behalf of the Association of American Universities, which represents 60
    of America's most prominent public and private research universities.
    AAU's member universities perform 60 percent of federally funded
    university-based research and award approximately half of all Ph.D.
    degrees granted annually.
        I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of AAU
    on the important role the Department of Defense (DOD) plays in
    supporting both research and education in fields critical to our
    national defense. Before going further, I would like to thank Chairman
    Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and the members of the subcommittee for
    your strong support for Defense Science and Technology (S&T) programs
    in the past. For each of the past 4 years the final funding levels for
    Defense S&T have met or exceeded 3 percent of the total defense
    budget--a target originally established in 1989 by the Defense Science
    Board and then included in the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2001. This
    strong support for Defense S&T has been due in large part to your
    efforts. Your support of Defense S&T is even more significant given
    that in each of these years, the budget proposed by the Pentagon for
    S&T programs fell short of the 3 percent target.
        As the subcommittee begins its work on the fiscal year 2006 defense
    appropriations bill, AAU offers the subcommittee two major
    recommendations.
        Within funds provided for Defense S&T, strengthen support for basic
    research.--While significantly more resources have been allocated to
    Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) in recent years
    and as referenced above, the 3 percent target for Defense S&T has been
    met, the percentage of this funding devoted to basic 6.1 research has
    declined. In fact, over the last 20 years, basic 6.1 research funding
    has declined in inflation-adjusted dollars, despite the demonstrated
    benefit of such funding.
        In December 2004, the Council on Competitiveness--a national
    consortium of industrial, university and labor leaders--released a
    report entitled Innovate America, which identified innovation as ``the
    single most important factor in determining America's success in the
    21st century.'' Among its recommendations, the report urged that DOD
    restore its historic commitment to pioneering discoveries by devoting
    not less than one-fifth of the Defense S&T budget to basic research. To
    achieve that goal, AAU recommends increasing funding for defense basic
    research (budget category 6.1) programs by $200 million in fiscal year
    2006 to $1.7 billion.
        Fully fund DOD's New National Defense Education Act (NDEA)--Phase I
    Initiative.--This year, in addition to the existing University Research
    Initiative, the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
    Fellowship Program, and the National Security Education Program
    (NSEP)--all programs for which AAU urges your continued support--the
    Pentagon has proposed $10.3 million for a new National Defense
    Education Act--Phase I program. The NDEA initiative would provide
    scholarships and fellowships to undergraduate and graduate students
    entering critical fields of science, mathematics, engineering and
    foreign languages in return for a commitment of national service after
    completion of their studies.
        AAU applauds this new initiative and believes it is a positive step
    toward addressing U.S. science and engineering (S&E) workforce needs.
    AAU encourages you to provide the $10.3 million requested for this
    program in fiscal year 2006 and recommends greatly expanding this
    exciting new initiative in fiscal year 2007. AAU has called for an even
    more comprehensive, multi-agency national defense education initiative
    to be developed aimed at stemming national educational deficiencies and
    encouraging more U.S. students to study in critical fields of
    knowledge.
        In the time I have remaining, let me briefly outline some key
    reasons why your support for basic defense research is critical. Then I
    will conclude with some final remarks about why AAU supports DOD's
    National Defense Education Act proposal.

         WHY INVESTING IN DOD RESEARCH IS CRITICAL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

        DOD basic (6.1) research is the foundation for the scientific and
    technological breakthroughs required to meet future military needs.--
    During the Cold War, DOD provided robust support for breakthrough basic
    research performed at the Nation's universities and national
    laboratories. This support resulted in many of the highly-effective
    technologies currently fielded in the war on terrorism today, such as
    global navigation, radar, laser targeting systems and ``smart'' bombs;
    lightweight body armor; the Internet; night vision and thermal imaging;
    unmanned aerial vehicles; and biological and chemical sensors. This
    funding was also critical to supporting some of the Nation's top
    scientific talent.
        Since the end of the Cold War, DOD's focus on basic research has
    declined significantly, dropping from 20 percent of total defense S&T
    funds in 1980 to less than 12 percent in fiscal year 2005. According to
    an assessment of DOD basic research released earlier this year, the
    decline in funding for 6.1 basic research in real terms from 1993 to
    2004 was 10 percent according to the inflation indexes used by the DOD
    and 18 percent using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Growing concerns
    about declining investments in fundamental research have been
    highlighted in a number of recent news articles which have brought
    attention to DARPA's move away from support of high risk, high payoff
    basic research.
        As the threats we face have grown more complex, the need for new
    knowledge is greater now than ever before.--New dangers facing the
    military, such as high technology terrorism, information warfare, and
    the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, require new and more
    sophisticated technologies. To meet these threats, DOD must strengthen
    its front-end commitment to basic research in areas such as:
    nanotechnology; high-speed microchips; computing and microchip
    capacity; composites research and stealth technology; explosive
    detection devices; self-healing wound technology; cybersecurity and
    encryption; and biological and chemical defense. The knowledge required
    to generate cutting edge technologies in these areas is critically
    dependent upon DOD's sustained investments in long-term, high risk,
    defense-oriented research performed at U.S. universities.
        At the University of Maryland, for example, DOD support has enabled
    the University to bring together researchers from academia, industry,
    and DOD laboratories to work together on problems ranging from
    energetic materials to advanced electronic devices. This year, for
    example, we are partnering with DOD to establish a new Joint Institute
    for Knowledge Discovery which will assist the agency with the
    extraordinary problem of sifting important information from the huge
    quantities of information collected daily by our intelligence services,
    including NSA. This effort will involve researchers from several
    universities, the private sector, and DOD.
        Defense support for research enlists today's top scientists in
    support of national defense while training tomorrow's experts in
    critical disciplines.--DOD's basic research investment produces not
    only military technology but also the people without whom technology
    would never see the light of day. DOD support to universities and DOD
    laboratories keeps top scientists and engineers involved in the
    academic disciplines that underpin national defense. It also plays a
    vital role in training the next generation of scientists and engineers
    who will become the future defense workforce and implement new defense
    innovations well into the 21st century.
        DOD is the third-largest Federal sponsor of university-based
    research. More than 300 universities and colleges conduct DOD-funded
    research. This research is concentrated in fields where advances are
    most likely to contribute to national defense: DOD provides 71 percent
    of Federal funding for electrical engineering, 46 percent for materials
    engineering, 38 percent for computer sciences, and 30 percent for ocean
    sciences. DOD also sponsors fellowships and provides significant
    support for graduate students in critical defense fields such as
    computer science and aerospace and electrical engineering.
        But there are still too few U.S. students studying these critical
    fields. The need to attract and retain them is the reason that AAU has
    endorsed DOD's proposal for the new National Defense Education Act and
    has called for an even greater multi-agency initiative in future years.

             WHY AAU SUPPORTS A NEW NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT

        As you know, a concerted effort to increase government investment
    in security-related research, education, and training is not novel. In
    response to the launch of Sputnik and the emerging threat posed by the
    Soviet Union, Congress in 1958 created NASA and adopted the National
    Defense Education Act (NDEA). The NDEA inspired generations of U.S.
    students to pursue fields critical to our national security, and
    enabled the United States to establish dominance in science and
    technology for military and civilian purposes.
        Our future military challenges simply cannot be met without an
    appropriately educated and trained U.S. defense workforce. These needs
    have been highlighted by several sources, including the Hart/Rudman
    Commission on National Security, the National Science Board, and most
    recently, the defense industry and the Pentagon itself.
        The sad truth is that in recent years, our country has failed to
    attract enough of our own best students to areas of critical importance
    to our security. This has left us critically dependent upon foreign
    talent to fulfill our workforce needs.
        Since 9/11, however, there has been a drop in the number of foreign
    students coming to the United States to study. Moreover, most of these
    foreign students cannot obtain security clearances and cannot be
    employed in DOD laboratories or by the defense industry. Based on
    numerous benchmarks contained in a recent report by the Task Force on
    the Future of American Innovation, the scientific and technological
    advantage that the United States has held over other nations is
    eroding.
        Rapidly developing economies, particularly those in Asia, are
    vigorously investing in their own research and higher education
    infrastructures, which is thus increasing their ability to both educate
    their people at home and to perform cutting-edge research.

                                    SUMMARY

        For reasons of national, homeland, and economic security, the
    United States must produce more graduates in critical fields. Not only
    are DOD and the defense and aerospace industries experiencing
    significant difficulty in attracting and retaining the science and
    engineering talent they require, but as many as 13,000 DOD laboratory
    scientists will be eligible to retire in the next decade. There may not
    be sufficient numbers of graduating, security-clearable U.S. students
    to replace them. In addition, thousands more scientists and engineers
    will be needed in other governmental agencies such as NASA and the
    Department of Energy, and in energy-related industries. And the
    military and intelligence communities face an acute shortage of
    linguists and area specialists in key parts of the world. We must act
    now to fill the pipeline of U.S. students trained in fields vital to
    our national and economic security.
        The Nation should not wait until we face a national security
    workforce crisis. It should act now. With your help, AAU believes that
    the DOD should and will play a leadership role in this effort.
        We urge your support for the $10.3 million requested for the NDEA-
    Phase I proposal and encourage you to recognize the need for additional
    resources for defense basic research. This is a small, but vital,
    investment in addressing the monumental national defense challenges we
    now face.
        Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its continued
    support of Department of Defense research and look to your continued
    leadership in this area.

        Senator Stevens. Well, doctor, tell me. Does this money
    really flow into the students or just into the university and
    the fixed staff?
        Dr. Destler. It goes entirely to the students. It provides
    scholarships and fellowships for the students to encourage them
    to study.
        Senator Stevens. This amount goes beyond the grants for
    research. It really reaches out to the students?
        Dr. Destler. That is exactly correct.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you will have our support on that. I
    just finished a meeting with some of the people that loan money
    to students and they tell me there is not enough incentive for
    the science and engineering students. So we want to try to help
    you on that.
        Dr. Destler. Exactly. Thank you very much for your support.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Sydney Hickey of the National Military Family Association.

    STATEMENT OF SYDNEY HICKEY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
                MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
        Ms. Hickey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye: the National Military Family
    Association (NMFA) appreciates this opportunity to express its
    views and the views of the families that we represent. We
    continue to be very grateful to you for your strong support of
    military family issues. Tremendous strides have been made in
    predeployment, deployment, and return and reunion support for
    families. Our families are concerned, however, about the long-
    term effects of frequent deployments, both on their service
    member and on their own family's integrity. Return and reunion
    programs must be long-term and include the families even when
    the service member is no longer on Active duty.
        Families are also concerned about the availability of
    quality child care. NMFA believes the situation will only
    worsen as rebasing, transformation, and BRAC cause significant
    shifts in population. Alternatives are being developed by the
    Department of Defense and we support these initiatives and urge
    funding for their rapid expansion.
        Transformation, overseas rebasing, and BRAC will require
    significantly more resources than are currently available to
    ensure that quality of life programs remain in effect at losing
    installations until the last family has left and are in place
    at gaining installations before the first families arrive. NMFA
    is therefore very concerned about recent reports that basic
    family support is short of funding.
        NMFA appreciates the many schools that have stepped up to
    the plate to provide needed counseling and other services to
    the children of deployed military parents. We believe that the
    extraordinary workload currently being placed on school systems
    necessitates an increase in the DOD impact aid supplement to
    $50 million and continued congressional oversight of the
    resources requested by DOD for their own schools.
        We also believe additional funds will be required in the
    out-years to assist those school districts that will receive
    many thousands of new military children from overseas areas and
    because of BRAC. NMFA believes robust funding of family support
    programs, including the education of children, is imperative
    for readiness.
        Significant beneficiary turmoil occurred during the
    changeover to the new TRICARE contracts. While progress has
    been made, difficulties remain. Access standards for Prime
    enrollees, particularly those enrolled in military treatment
    facilities, are not being met in many cases. Families returning
    stateside due to overseas rebasing will not be able to be
    accommodated in many instances in military treatment facilities
    (MTFs). If the BRAC proposals for MTFs are implemented,
    significant inpatient workload will also shift out of the MTFs.
    NMFA believes the military health care system should be
    realistically and fully funded to provide quality and promised
    care to all beneficiaries wherever they receive that care.
        NMFA is very grateful for the significant increase in the
    death gratuity and the servicemen's group life insurance
    (SGLI), but strongly believes that all in line of duty deaths
    must be treated the same; and we continue to believe that
    removing the dependency indemnity compensation offset to the
    survivor benefit plan is the best way to establish the long-
    term financial stability of the surviving family.
        NMFA thanks you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, and your
    fellow members of this subcommittee for your support of
    military families and respectfully requests that it continue.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. If I did not do that my wife would not let
    me home. If I did not support you my wife would throw me out.
        Ms. Hickey. More power to her.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Kathleen B. Moakler, Deputy Director, Government
              Relations, the National Military Family Association

        The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is the only
    national organization whose sole focus is the military family and whose
    goal is to influence the development and implementation of policies
    which will improve the lives of those family members. Its mission is to
    serve the families of the seven uniformed services through education,
    information and advocacy.
        Founded in 1969 as the Military Wives Association, NMFA is a non-
    profit 501(c)(3) primarily volunteer organization. NMFA today
    represents the interests of family members and the active duty, reserve
    components and retired personnel of the seven uniformed services: Army,
    Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
        NMFA Representatives in military communities worldwide provide a
    direct link between military families and NMFA staff in the Nation's
    capital. Representatives are the ``eyes and ears'' of NMFA, bringing
    shared local concerns to national attention.
        NMFA receives no Federal grants and has no Federal contracts.
        NMFA's web site is located at http://www.nmfa.org.
        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. NMFA is also grateful for
    your leadership in the 108th Congress in securing funds to:
      --Make increases in the Family Separation Allowance and Imminent
            Danger Pay permanent.
      --End the age-62 Survivor Benefit Plan offset.
      --Help DOD support the education of military children.
      --Support family readiness programs and military health care.
        As a founding member of The Military Coalition, NMFA subscribes to
    the recommendations contained in the Coalition's testimony presented
    for this hearing. We especially endorse the Coalition's request that
    this subcommittee work to protect the benefits depended upon by members
    of the all-volunteer force, retirees, their families, and survivors.
    According to DOD statistics, approximately one-fourth of today's
    servicemembers came from military families. Ensuring a robust support
    network for today's military families and fulfilling promises made to
    military retirees will enhance the capabilities of tomorrow's force.
        NMFA also endorses The Military Coalition's recommendations to:
      --Enhance education and outreach to improve military family readiness
            and support families of deployed active duty, National Guard,
            and Reserve servicemembers.
      --Fully-fund the commissary benefit and scrutinize proposals to close
            commissaries or combine exchange services.
      --Ease the transition of Guard and Reserve families to TRICARE when
            the servicemember is mobilized by providing a choice of
            purchasing TRICARE coverage when in drill status or receiving
            Federal payment of civilian health care premiums when the
            servicemember is mobilized.
      --Fully-fund the Defense Health Program budget to provide access to
            quality care for all beneficiaries.
      --Authorize full Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for Guard and
            Reserve members mobilized for more than 30 days.
        In this statement, NMFA will address issues related to military
    families.

                FAMILY READINESS THROUGHOUT THE DEPLOYMENT CYCLE

        The Services continue to refine the programs and initiatives to
    provide support for military families in the period leading up to
    deployments, during deployment, and the return and reunion period. Our
    message to you today is simple: increased funding to support family
    readiness is paying off! Family readiness over the long term requires
    that resources must be directed not just at deployment-related support
    programs, but also to sustain the full array of baseline installation
    quality of life programs. As referenced in NMFA's 2004 analysis report,
    ``Serving the Home Front: An Analysis of Military Family Support from
    September 11, 2001 through March 31, 2004,'' consistent levels of
    targeted family readiness funding are needed, along with consistent
    levels of command focus on the importance of family support programs.
        NMFA is very concerned about recent reports from Service leadership
    and from individual installations about potential shortfalls in base
    operations funding and appropriated fund support for Morale, Welfare
    and Recreation (MWR) and other quality of life programs. While some of
    these cuts may be temporary, in programs and facilities seeing declines
    in patronage due to the deployment of units from the installations,
    others are in services that support families, such as spouse employment
    support, volunteer support, child development center hours, or family
    member orientation programs. These core quality of life programs make
    the transition to military life for new military members easier and
    lessen the strain of deployment for all families. NMFA does not have
    the expertise to ferret out exact MWR funding levels from Service
    Operations and Maintenance budgets. We are concerned about the state of
    this funding--both appropriated and non-appropriated fund support--
    because of what we hear from servicemembers and families, what we read
    in installation papers chronicling cutbacks, and from Service leaders
    who have identified shortfalls in base operations funding in the
    administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request. Resources must be
    available for commanders and others charged with ensuring family
    readiness to help alleviate the strains on families facing more
    frequent and longer deployments.
        NMFA is particularly troubled by what we see as mixed signals
    regarding DOD's long-term commitment to quality of life services and
    programs. In recent testimony, several DOD and Service leaders have
    focused on the costs of many benefit programs and emphasized plans to
    increase bonuses, as opposed to other types of benefits or
    compensation. NMFA regards this narrow focus on bonuses as an
    inadequate quick fix to recruiting and retention woes. We agree with
    the Senior Enlisted Advisors who, in recent testimony, emphasized the
    importance of addressing quality of life issues for active, National
    Guard and Reserve servicemembers and their families. They listed child
    care and housing as top priorities, in addition to pay, health care,
    and educational opportunities for servicemembers and their families.
    NMFA believes military leaders must recognize that the robust military
    benefit package needed to recruit and retain a quality force demands
    attention to both pay and non-pay elements of that package.

                       WHAT'S NEEDED FOR FAMILY SUPPORT?

        Family readiness volunteers and installation family support
    personnel in both active duty and reserve component communities have
    been stretched thin over the past 3\1/2\ years as they have had to
    juggle pre-deployment, ongoing deployment, and return and reunion
    support, often simultaneously. Unfortunately, this juggling act will
    likely continue for some time. Family member volunteers support the
    servicemembers' choice to serve; however, they are frustrated with
    being called on too often during longer than anticipated and repeated
    deployments. Military community volunteers are the front line troops in
    the mission to ensure family readiness. They deserve training,
    information, and assistance from their commands, supportive unit rear
    detachment personnel, professional backup to deal with family issues
    beyond their expertise and comfort level, and opportunities for respite
    before becoming overwhelmed. NMFA is pleased to note that the Army's
    paid Family Readiness Support Assistants are getting rave reviews from
    commanders and family readiness volunteers--funding is needed so that
    more of these positions can be created.
        NMFA knows that complicated military operations can result in
    deployments of unexpected lengths and more frequent deployments. But we
    also understand the frustrations of family members who eagerly
    anticipated the return of their servicemembers on a certain date only
    to be informed at the last minute that the deployment will be extended
    or that the unit will be deployed again within a year or less of its
    return. Other than the danger inherent in combat situations, the
    unpredictability of the length and frequency of deployments is perhaps
    the single most important factor frustrating families today. Because of
    this unpredictability, family members need more help in acquiring the
    tools to cope. They also need consistent levels of support throughout
    the entire cycle of deployment, which includes the time when
    servicemembers are at the home installation and working long hours to
    support other units who are deployed or gearing up their training in
    preparation for another deployment. As one spouse wrote to NMFA:

        ``This is really starting to take a toll on families out here since
    some families are now on the verge of their third deployment of the
    servicemember to Iraq. Families are not so much disgruntled by the
    tempo of operations as they are at a loss for resources to deal with
    what I've started calling the `pivotal period.' This is the point where
    the honeymoon from the last deployment is over, the servicemember is
    starting to train again for the next deployment in a few months and is
    gone on a regular basis, the family is balancing things with the
    servicemember coming and going and also realizing the servicemember is
    going to go away again and be in harm's way. We have deployment briefs
    that set the tone and provide expectations for when the servicemember
    leaves. We have return and reunion briefs that prepare families and
    provide expectations for when the servicemember returns. These two
    events help families know what is normal and what resources are
    available but there is an enormous hole for that `pivotal period.' No
    one is getting families together to let them know their thoughts,
    experiences and expectations are (or aren't) normal in those in between
    months. Deployed spouses have events, programs, and free child care
    available to them as they should--but what about these things for the
    in-betweeners who are experiencing common thoughts and challenges?''

        Efforts to improve the return and reunion process must evolve as
    everyone learns more about the effects of multiple deployments on both
    servicemembers and families, as well as the time it may take for some
    of these effects to become apparent. Information gathered in the now-
    mandatory post-deployment health assessments may also help identify
    servicemembers who may need more specialized assistance in making the
    transition home over the long term. NMFA applauds the announcement made
    in January by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
    that DOD would mandate a second assessment at the 4- to 6-month mark
    following the servicemember's return. We urge Congress to ensure the
    military Service medical commands have the personnel resources needed
    to conduct these assessments.
        NMFA is concerned that much of the research on mental health issues
    and readjustment has focused on the servicemember. More needs to be
    done to study the effects of deployment and the servicemembers' post-
    deployment readjustment on family members. Return and reunion issues
    are long-term issues. More also needs to be done to ensure proper
    tracking of the adjustment of returning servicemembers. Post-deployment
    assessments and support services must also be available to the families
    of returning Guard and Reserve members and servicemembers who leave the
    military following the end of their enlistment. Although they may be
    eligible for transitional health care benefits and the servicemember
    may seek care through the Veterans' Administration, what happens when
    the military health benefits run out and deployment-related stresses
    still affect the family?
        NMFA is pleased that DOD has intensified its marketing efforts for
    Military OneSource as one resource in the support for families
    throughout the entire deployment cycle. Military OneSource provides 24/
    7 access, toll-free or online, to community and family support
    resources, allowing families to access information and services when
    and where they need them. DOD, through OneSource, has committed to
    helping returning servicemembers and families of all Services 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 concerned that some of the recent cuts in family program staff
    at installations suffering a shortfall in base operations funding may
    have been made under the assumption that necessary support could be
    provided remotely through OneSource. The OneSource information and
    referral service must be properly coordinated with other support
    services, to enable family support professionals to manage the many
    tasks that come from high optempo.
        Geographically-isolated Guard and Reserve families must depend on a
    growing but still patchy military support network. Countless local and
    State initiatives by government organizations and community groups have
    sprung up to make dealing with deployment easier for Guard and Reserve
    family members. One new initiative that has the potential to network
    these local efforts is the National Demonstration Program for Citizen-
    Soldier Support. This community-based program is designed to strengthen
    support for National Guard and Reserve families by building and
    reinforcing the capacity of civilian agencies, systems, and resources
    to better serve them. Initiated by the University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, with $1.8 million in seed money provided in the fiscal
    year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, the Citizen-Soldier Support
    Program will be coordinated closely with existing military programs and
    officials in order to avoid duplication of effort and to leverage and
    optimize success. Leveraging community programs with Federal funding
    and programs can be a win-win situation. NMFA recommends continued
    funding of this program to allow it time to develop a model that can be
    replicated in other locations and to set up training to achieve this
    replication.

                                  HEALTH CARE

        This year, NMFA is monitoring the after-effects of the transition
    to the new round of TRICARE contracts and the continued transition of
    mobilized Guard and Reserve members and their families in and out of
    TRICARE. We are concerned that the Defense Health Program may not have
    all the resources it needs to meet both military medical readiness
    mission and provide access to health care for all beneficiaries. The
    Defense Health Program must be funded sufficiently so that the direct
    care system of military treatment facilities and the purchased care
    segment of civilian providers can work in tandem to meet the
    responsibilities given under the new contracts, meet readiness needs,
    and ensure access for all TRICARE beneficiaries. Families of Guard and
    Reserve members should have flexible options for their health care
    coverage that address both access to care and continuity of care
        NMFA believes that ``rosy'' predictions when significant contract
    changes are being made are a disservice to both beneficiaries and the
    system. NMFA is appreciative of the intense effort being made to
    improve the referral and authorization process, but is concerned about
    the cost of the work-around and the prospect of a new round of
    disruptions when DOD's electronic referral and authorization system is
    implemented. It is imperative that whatever changes are made, the
    promised Prime access standards must be met.
        NMFA again notes that more must be done to educate Standard
    beneficiaries about their benefit and any changes that might occur to
    that benefit. To end the TRICARE Standard access problem that is a
    constant complaint of beneficiaries, DOD must work harder to attract
    providers and understand the reasons why providers do not accept
    TRICARE Standard.
        We are closely watching the impending implementation of the TRICARE
    Reserve Select health care benefit for the reserve component. We have
    several concerns about the implementation of this program, especially
    regarding beneficiary education. Both the servicemember and the family
    need to understand the coverage provided under Reserve Select, the
    costs, and, most importantly, how Reserve Select differs from the
    TRICARE Prime or Prime Remote benefit the family used while the
    servicemember was on active duty. Emphasis must continue on promoting
    continuity of care for families of Guard and Reserve servicemembers.
    NMFA's recommendation to enhance continuity of care for this population
    is to allow members of the Selected Reserve to choose between buying
    into TRICARE when not on active duty or receive a DOD subsidy allowing
    their families to remain with their employer-sponsored care when
    mobilized. NMFA also recommends that the rules governing health care
    coverage under TAMP be updated to allow the servicemember and family to
    remain eligible for TRICARE Prime Remote.

                               ALARMING DISCOVERY

        Over the years, NMFA has received anecdotal information from family
    members that providers are not accepting them as TRICARE patients
    because the TRICARE reimbursement level was below that provided by
    Medicaid. Needless to say, family members have been outraged! However,
    since TRICARE reimbursement is tied by law to Medicare reimbursement,
    NMFA has believed the problem to be far larger than the military health
    care system. Alarm bells sounded, however, when NMFA was recently
    informed of the situation in several locations where differences
    between Medicaid and TRICARE rates for obstetrical care or pediatric
    procedures have added to the reasons providers give for not accepting
    TRICARE patients. NMFA does not know how prevalent this problem may be
    across the country and urgently requests that Congress require DOD to
    compare the reimbursement rates of Medicaid with those of TRICARE. We
    are particularly concerned with the rates for pediatric and
    obstetrical/gynecological care where Medicare has little experience in
    rate setting.

                                   SURVIVORS

        NMFA believes that the government's 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. We know that there is no way to compensate those
    who have lost their servicemember, but we do owe it to these families
    to help ensure a secure future. NMFA strongly believes that all
    servicemembers' deaths should be treated equally. Servicemembers are on
    duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Through their
    oath, each servicemember's commitment is the same. The survivor benefit
    package should not create inequities by awarding different benefits to
    families who lose a servicemember in a hostile zone versus those who
    lose their loved one in a training mission preparing for service in a
    hostile zone. To the family, the loss is the same. NMFA was pleased
    that both the House and Senate included increased survivor benefits in
    their versions of the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act. We urge this subcommittee to ensure that these
    increased benefits will be funded for fiscal year 2006.
        NMFA recommends the following changes to support surviving family
    members of active duty deaths:
      --Treat all active duty deaths equally. The military Services have
            procedures in place to make ``line of death'' determinations.
            Do not impose another layer of deliberation on that process.
      --Eliminate the DIC offset to SBP. Doing so would recognize the
            length of commitment and service of the career servicemember
            and spouse. Eliminating the offset would also restore to those
            widows/widowers of those retirees who died of a service-
            connected disability the SBP benefit that the servicemember
            paid for.
      --Improve the quality and consistency of training for Casualty
            Assistance Officers and family support providers so they can
            better support families in their greatest time of need.
      --In cases where the family has employer sponsored dental insurance,
            treat them as if they had been enrolled in the TRICARE Dental
            Program at the time of the servicemember's death, thus making
            them eligible for the 3-year survivor benefit.
      --Update the TRICARE benefit provided in 3-year period following the
            servicemember's death in which the surviving spouse and
            children are treated as their active duty family members and
            allow them to enroll in TRICARE Prime Remote.
      --Allow surviving families to remain in government or privatized
            family housing longer than the current 6-month period if
            necessary for children to complete the school year, with the
            family paying rent for the period after 6 months.
      --Expand access to grief counseling for spouses, children, parents,
            and siblings through Vet Centers, OneSource, and other
            community-based services.
      --To provide for the long-term support of surviving families,
            establish a Survivor Office in the Department of Veterans'
            Affairs.

                  WOUNDED SERVICEMEMBERS HAVE WOUNDED FAMILIES

        Post-deployment transitions could be especially problematic for
    servicemembers who have been injured and their families. NMFA asserts
    that behind every wounded servicemember is a wounded family. Wounded
    and injured servicemembers and their families deserve no less support
    than survivors. Spouses, children, and parents of servicemembers
    injured defending our country experience many uncertainties, including
    the injured servicemember's return and reunion with their family,
    financial stresses, and navigating the transition process to the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
        Support, assistance, and above all, counseling programs, which are
    staffed by real people who provide face to face contact, are needed for
    the families of wounded/injured servicemembers. Whenever feasible,
    Military OneSource should be used as a resource multiplier. Mental
    health services and trained counselors need to be available and easily
    accessible for all servicemembers and their families who may suffer
    ``invisible'' injuries like combat stress and PTSD. Distance from MTFs
    or VA Centers should not preclude servicemembers and their families
    from seeking and receiving care. Respite care options should be
    provided and accessible for family members who care for the seriously
    wounded.
        NMFA recommends the following changes to support wounded and
    injured servicemembers and their families:
      --Direct the military Services, OSD, and the VA to improve their
            coordination in support of the wounded servicemember and
            family.
      --Consider initiatives to enhance the short term financial stability
            of the wounded servicemember's family, such as: continuing
            combat pays and tax exclusion, creating a disability gratuity,
            or implementing a group disability insurance program.
      --Extend the 3-year survivor health care benefit to servicemembers
            who are medically retired and their families.
      --Enhance servicemember and spouse education benefits and employment
            support.
      --Establish a Family Assistance Center at every Military Treatment
            Facility (MTF) caring for wounded servicemembers.

                        EDUCATION FOR MILITARY CHILDREN

        A significant element of family readiness is an educational system
    that provides a quality education to military children, recognizing the
    needs of these ever-moving students and responding to situations where
    the military parent is deployed and/or in an armed conflict. Addressing
    the needs of these children, their classmates, and their parents is
    imperative to lowering the overall family stress level and to achieving
    an appropriate level of family readiness. But it does not come without
    cost to the local school system. Schools serving military children,
    whether DOD or civilian schools, need the resources available to meet
    military parents' expectation that their children receive the highest
    quality education possible.
        NMFA is appreciative of the support shown by Congress for the
    schools educating military children. You have consistently supported
    the needs of the schools operated by the DOD Education Activity
    (DODEA), both in terms of basic funding and military construction. The
    commitment to the education of military children in DOD schools between
    Congress, DOD, military commanders, DODEA leadership and staff, and
    especially military parents has resulted in high test scores,
    nationally-recognized minority student achievement, parent involvement
    programs and partnership activities with the military community. This
    partnership has been especially important as the overseas communities
    supported by DODDS and many of the installations with DDESS schools
    have experienced high deployment rates. DOD schools have responded to
    the operations tempo with increased support for families and children
    in their communities. NMFA is concerned that 3 years of a weak dollar
    has forced the DODDS schools, especially in Europe, to divert funds
    from maintenance and other accounts to pay necessary increases in
    employee allowances. Given the high level of deployment from European
    communities, we ask that Congress work with DOD to ensure DOD schools
    have the resources they need to handle their additional tasks.
        NMFA is also appreciative of the approximately $30 million Congress
    adds in most years to the Defense budget to supplement Impact Aid for
    school districts whose enrollments are more than 20 percent military
    children and for the additional funding to support civilian school
    districts who are charged with educating severely disabled military
    children. NMFA does not believe, however, that this amount is
    sufficient to help school districts meet the current demands placed on
    them. Additional counseling and improvements to security are just two
    needs faced by many of these school districts. NMFA asks this
    subcommittee to increase the DOD supplement to Impact Aid to $50
    million so that the recipient school districts have more resources at
    their disposal to educate the children of those who serve.

                               SPOUSE EMPLOYMENT

        Sixty-nine percent of all military spouses and 86 percent of junior
    enlisted spouses are in the labor force. For many families this second
    income is a critical factor in their financial well being. Concerned
    that spouses desiring better careers will encourage servicemembers to
    leave the military, DOD has instituted several programs to support
    military spouses in their career goals. With 700,000 active duty
    spouses, however, 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.
        Despite greater awareness of the importance of supporting military
    spouse career aspirations, some roadblocks remain. State laws governing
    unemployment compensation vary greatly and very few states generally
    grant unemployment compensation eligibility to military spouses who
    have moved because of a servicemember's government ordered move. NMFA
    has been pleased to note that some States are examining their in-state
    tuition rules and licensing requirements. These changes ease spouses'
    ability to obtain an education or to transfer their occupation as they
    move. NMFA is appreciative of the efforts by DOD to work with States to
    promote the award of unemployment compensation to military spouses,
    eligibility for in-state tuition, and reciprocity for professional
    licenses. Its website, usa4militaryfamilies.org, provides details on
    these State initiatives.

                                   CHILD CARE

        On a recent visit to Europe, President and Mrs. Bush stopped at
    Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to thank the troops for their service and
    dedication to our Nation. While visiting with families there, Mrs. Bush
    was made aware of the lack of child care providers in the community.
    This information is not new to NMFA. We have been hearing from our
    field Representatives that this is an on-going problem, especially
    OCONUS where child care options are limited. As one of our members in
    Germany stated: ``Drawing from the pool of military spouses is no
    longer working over here. Big shortages. They are asking too much of
    the spouses as it is.'' Families in Europe state that funding targeted
    to pay raises for child care providers and increased subsidies for in-
    home providers could help the Services recruit more child care workers.
        A recent online survey conducted by NMFA further outlines the need
    for more child care. Of special interest in the survey results was the
    frustration from dual military parents. Dealing with deployments, drill
    weekends and lack of child care facilities were of great concern.
    Families also cited concerns about finding child care after relocating
    to a new area. Because the servicemember is often quickly deployed
    after relocation, the spouse must deal with the added stress as he/she
    looks for employment and childcare in the new location. At a recent
    hearing, three of the four Service Senior Enlisted Advisors cited child
    care as their number one concern for their servicemembers and families.
    The advisors spoke of lost duty time by servicemembers unable to find
    child care. DOD officials estimate that the Department needs at least
    38,000 more slots. According to the Enlisted Advisors, the need may be
    greater. All spoke of waiting lists stretching into the thousands.
        DOD is expanding partnerships to meet the demand described by the
    NMFA survey respondents and the Senior Enlisted Advisors. The National
    Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA)
    initiated a program entitled Operation Child Care to provide donated
    short term respite and reunion child care for members of the National
    Guard and Reserve returning from Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation
    Iraqi Freedom for the 2-week Rest and Recreation leave period. Another
    initiative through Military OneSource offers 10 hours of free childcare
    to each service member returning on R&R leave. NACCRA is also
    partnering with DOD on ``Operation Military Child Care,'' which will
    help provide much needed government-subsidized, high quality child care
    for mobilized and deployed military parents who cannot access a
    military child development center. More funding dedicated to support
    families' access to child care and subsidize the costs is still needed.

                   TRANSFORMATION, GLOBAL RE-BASING, AND BRAC

        As the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission prepares to
    receive DOD's list of installations recommended for realignment and
    closure, military beneficiaries are looking to Congress to ensure that
    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, 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, 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. NMFA does not have a
    position on whether or not downsizing overseas should occur or how or
    where troops should be based. Our interest in this discussion is in
    raising awareness of the imperative that military family and quality of
    life concerns be considered by policy-makers in their decision-making
    process and in the implementation of any rebasing or transformation
    plans.
        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. Planning must
    include the preservation of quality of life programs, services, and
    facilities at closing installations as long as servicemembers and
    families remain AND the development of a robust quality of life
    infrastructure at the receiving installation that is in place before
    the new families and servicemembers arrive. Ensuring the availability
    of quality of life programs, services, and facilities at both closing
    and receiving installations and easing service members and families'
    transition from one to another will take additional funding and
    personnel. NMFA looks to Congress to ensure that DOD has programmed in
    the 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 in the cost 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.

                     STRONG FAMILIES ENSURE A STRONG FORCE

        Mr. Chairman, NMFA is grateful to this subcommittee for ensuring
    funding is available for the vital quality of life components needed by
    today's force. As you consider the quality of life needs of
    servicemembers and their families this year, NMFA asks that you
    remember that the events of the past 3\1/2\ years have left this family
    force drained, yet still committed to their mission. Servicemembers
    look to their leaders to provide them with the tools to do the job, to
    enhance predictability, and to ensure that their families are cared
    for. Further, they look to their leaders to make sure their children
    are receiving a quality education and their spouses' career aspirations
    can be met. They look for signs from you that help is on the way, that
    their pay reflects the tasks they have been asked to do, and that their
    hard-earned benefits will continue to be available for themselves,
    their families, and their survivors, both now and into retirement.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Donetta D'Innocenzo.

    STATEMENT OF DONETTA D'INNOCENZO, PUBLIC POLICY
                COMMITTEE, THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY
        Ms. D'Innocenzo. D'Innocenzo, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Public Policy Committee of the Leukemia &
    Lymphoma Society. Thank you very much.
        Ms. D'Innocenzo. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye: My name is
    Donetta D'Innocenzo and I am pleased to appear today to testify
    on behalf of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. During its 56
    year history, the society has been dedicated to finding a cure
    for blood-related cancers. That includes leukemia, lymphoma,
    and myeloma. The society has the distinction of being both the
    largest private organization dedicated to blood cancers and the
    Nation's second largest private cancer organization.
        We are pleased to report that impressive progress is being
    made in the treatment of many blood cancers. Over the last 20
    years there have been steady and impressive strides in the
    treatment of the most common form of childhood leukemia, and
    just 3 years ago a new therapy called Gleevec was approved for
    chronic myelogenous leukemia, which is a so-called targeted
    therapy that corrects the molecular defect that causes the
    disease and does so with few side effects.
        The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society is proud to have played a
    role in the development of this lifesaving therapy, but our
    mission is far from complete. There is much work still to be
    done and we believe the research partnership between the public
    and private sectors, as represented in the Department of
    Defense's congressionally directed medical research program is
    an integral part of that effort and should be strengthened.
        Hematological, or blood-related, cancers pose a serious
    health risk to all Americans. In 2005 more than 115,000
    Americans will be diagnosed with a form of blood-related cancer
    and almost 56,000 will die. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society,
    along with its partners, the Lymphoma Research Foundation and
    the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, believe this type of
    medical research is particularly important to the Department of
    Defense for a number of reasons.
        First, research on blood-related cancers has significant
    relevance to the armed forces as the incidence of these cancers
    is substantially higher among individuals with chemical and
    nuclear exposure. Higher incidences of leukemia have long been
    substantiated in extreme nuclear incidents in both military and
    civilian populations, and recent studies have proven that
    individual exposure to chemical agents such as Agent Orange in
    the Vietnam war cause an increased risk of contracting lymphoid
    malignancies. In addition, bone marrow transplants were first
    explored as a means of treating radiation-exposed combatants
    and civilians following World War II.
        Second, research in blood-related cancers has traditionally
    pioneered treatments in other malignancies. This research
    frequently represents the leading edge in cancer treatments
    that are later applied to other forms of cancer. Chemotherapy
    and bone marrow transplants are two striking examples of
    treatments first developed in the blood cancers.
        From a medical research perspective, it is a particularly
    promising time to build a Department of Defense research effort
    focused on blood-related cancers. That relevance and
    opportunity were recognized over the last 4 years when Congress
    appropriated $4.5 million annually, a total of $18 million, to
    begin initial research into chronic myelogenous leukemia
    through the congressionally directed medical research program.
        As members of the subcommittee know, a noteworthy and
    admirable distinction of the congressionally directed medical
    research program (CDMRP) is its cooperative and collaborative
    process that incorporates the experience and expertise of a
    broad range of patients, researchers, and physicians in the
    field. Since the chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) program was
    announced, members of the society, individual patient
    advocates, and leading researchers have enthusiastically
    welcomed the opportunity to become a part of this program.
        Unfortunately for us, $4.5 million does not go very far in
    medical research. Recognizing that fact and the opportunity
    this research presents, a bipartisan group of 34 Members of
    Congress have requested that the program be modestly increased
    to $15 million and be expanded to include all blood cancers,
    that is leukemias, lymphomas, and myeloma. This would provide
    the research community with the flexibility to build on the
    pioneering tradition that has characterized this field.
        Department of Defense research on other forms of blood
    cancers addresses the importance of preparing for civilian and
    military exposure to weapons being developed by several hostile
    nations and to aid in the march to more effective treatment for
    all who suffer from these diseases.
        We respectfully request inclusion of this in the 2006
    legislation. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Donetta D'Innocenzo

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today and testify on
    behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS).
        During its 56-year history, the Society has been dedicated to
    finding a cure for the blood cancers--leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma.
    The Society has the distinction of being both the largest private
    organization dedicated to blood-related cancers and the Nation's second
    largest private cancer organization.
        Our central contribution to the search for a cure is providing a
    significant amount of the funding for basic and translational research
    in the blood cancers. In 2005, we will provide approximately $50
    million in research grants. In addition to our role funding research,
    we provide a wide range of services to individuals with the blood
    cancers, their caregivers, families, and friends through our 63
    chapters across the country. Finally, we advocate responsible public
    policies that will advance our mission of finding a cure for the blood
    cancers.
        We are pleased to report that impressive progress is being made in
    the treatment of many blood cancers. Over the last two decades, there
    have been steady and impressive strides in the treatment of the most
    common form of childhood leukemia, and the survival rate for that form
    of leukemia has improved dramatically.
        And just 3 years ago, a new therapy was approved for chronic
    myelogenous leukemia, a form of leukemia for which there were
    previously limited treatment options, all with serious side-effects.
    Let me say that more clearly, if 4 years ago your doctor told you that
    you had CML, you would have been informed that there were limited
    treatment options and that you should get your affairs in order. Today,
    those same patients have access to this new therapy, called Gleevec,
    which is a so-called targeted therapy that corrects the molecular
    defect that causes the disease, and does so with few side effects.
        LLS funded the early research on Gleevec, as it has contributed to
    research on a number of new therapies. We are pleased that we played a
    role in the development of this life-saving therapy, but we realize
    that our mission is far from complete. Many forms of leukemia, lymphoma
    and myeloma present daunting treatment challenges. There is much work
    still to be done, and we believe the research partnership between the
    public and private sectors--as represented in the Department of
    Defense's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program--in an
    integral part of that effort and should be strengthened.

             THE GRANT PROGRAMS OF THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY

        The grant programs of the Society are in three broad categories:
    Career Development Grants, Translational Research Grants for early-
    stage support for clinical research, and Specialized Centers of
    Research. In our Career Development program, we fund Scholars, Special
    Fellows, and Fellows who are pursuing careers in basic or clinical
    research. In our Translational Research Program, we focus on supporting
    investigators whose objective is to translate basic research
    discoveries into new therapies.
        The work of Dr. Brian Druker, an oncologist at Oregon Health
    Sciences University and the chief investigator on Gleevec, was
    supported by a translational research grant from the Society. Dr.
    Druker is certainly a star among those supported by LLS, but our
    support in this field is broad and deep. Through the Career Development
    and Translational Research Programs, we are currently supporting more
    than 500 investigators in 38 States and ten foreign countries.
        Our new Specialized Centers of Research grant program (SCOR) is
    intended to bring together research teams focused on the discovery of
    innovative approaches to benefit patients or those at risk of
    developing leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma. The awards will go to those
    groups that can demonstrate that their close interaction will create
    research synergy and accelerate our search for new therapies,
    prevention, or cures.

                        IMPACT OF HEMATOLOGICAL CANCERS

        Despite enhancements in treating blood cancers, there are still
    significant research opportunities and challenges. Hematological, or
    blood-related, cancers pose a serious health risk to all Americans.
    These cancers are actually a large number of diseases of varied causes
    and molecular make-up, and with different treatments, that strike men
    and women of all ages. In 2005, more than 115,000 Americans will be
    diagnosed with a form of blood-related cancer and almost 56,000 will
    die from these cancers. For some, treatment may lead to long-term
    remission and cure; for others these are chronic diseases that will
    require treatments on several occasions; and for others treatment
    options are extremely limited. For many, recurring disease will be a
    continual threat to a productive and secure life.
        A few focused points to put this in perspective:
      --Taken together, the hematological cancers are fifth among cancers
            in incidence and second in mortality.
      --Almost 700,000 Americans are living with a hematological malignancy
            in 2005.
      --Almost 56,000 people will die from hematological cancers in 2005,
            compared to 40,000 from breast cancer, 30,200 from prostate
            cancer, and 56,000 from colorectal cancer.
      --Blood-related cancers still represent serious treatment challenges.
            The improved survival for those diagnosed with all types of
            hematological cancers has been uneven. The 5-year survival
            rates are: Hodgkin's disease, 83 percent; Non-Hodgkin's
            lymphoma, 53 percent; Leukemias (total), 45 percent; Multiple
            Myeloma, 29 percent; Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, 14 percent.
      --Individuals who have been treated for leukemia, lymphoma, and
            myeloma may suffer serious adverse events of treatment,
            including second malignancies, organ dysfunction (cardiac,
            pulmonary, and endocrine), neuropsychological and psychosocial
            aspects, and quality of life.

                                     TRENDS

        Since the early 1970's, incidence rates for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
    (NHL) have nearly doubled.
        For the period from 1973 to 1998, the death rate for non-Hodgkin's
    lymphoma increased by 45 percent, and the death rate for multiple
    myeloma increased by more than 32 percent. These increases occurred
    during a time period when death rates for most other cancers are
    dropping.
        Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma rank second and fifth,
    respectively, in terms of increased cancer mortality since 1973.
        Recent statistics indicate both increasing incidence and earlier
    age of onset for multiple myeloma.
        Multiple myeloma is one of the top ten leading causes of cancer
    death among African Americans.
        Despite the significant decline in the leukemia death rate for
    children in the United States, leukemia is still one of the two most
    common diseases that cause death in children in the United States.
        Lymphoma is the third most common childhood cancer.

                        CAUSES OF HEMATOLOGICAL CANCERS

        The causes of hematological cancers are varied, and our
    understanding of the etiology of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma is
    limited. Chemicals in pesticides and herbicides, as well as viruses
    such as HIV and EBV, play a role in some hematological cancers, but for
    most cases, no cause is identified. Researchers have recently published
    a study reporting that the viral footprint for simian virus 40 (SV40)
    was found in the tumors of 43 percent of NHL patients. These research
    findings may open avenues for investigation of the detection,
    prevention, and treatment of NHL. There is a pressing need for more
    investigation of the role of infectious agents or environmental toxins
    in the initiation or progression of these diseases.

                    IMPORTANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, along with its partners in the
    Lymphoma Research Foundation and the Multiple Myeloma Research
    Foundation, believe this type of medical research is particularly
    important to the Department of Defense for a number of reasons.
        First, research on blood-related cancers has significant relevance
    to the armed forces, as the incidence of these cancers is substantially
    higher among individuals with chemical and nuclear exposure. Higher
    incidences of leukemia have long been substantiated in extreme nuclear
    incidents in both military and civilian populations, and recent studies
    have proven that individual exposure to chemical agents, such as Agent
    Orange in the Vietnam War, cause an increased risk of contracting
    lymphoid malignancies. In addition, bone marrow transplants were first
    explored as a means of treating radiation-exposed combatants and
    civilians following World War II.
        Secondly, research in the blood cancers has traditionally pioneered
    treatments in other malignancies. This research frequently represents
    the leading edge in cancer treatments that are later applied to other
    forms of cancer. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are two
    striking examples of treatments first developed in the blood cancers.
        From a medical research perspective, it is a particularly promising
    time to build a DOD research effort focused on blood-related cancers.
    That relevance and opportunity were recognized over the last 4 years
    when Congress appropriated $4.5 million annually--for a total of $18
    million--to begin initial research into chronic myelogenous leukemia
    (CML) through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program
    (CDMRP). As members of the subcommittee know, a noteworthy and
    admirable distinction of the CDMRP is its cooperative and collaborative
    process that incorporates the experience and expertise of a broad range
    of patients, researchers and physicians in the field. Since the CML
    program was announced, members of the Society, individual patient
    advocates and leading researchers have enthusiastically welcomed the
    opportunity to become a part of this program and contribute to the
    promise of a successful, collaborative quest for a cure.
        Unfortunately, $4.5 million a year does not go very far in medical
    research. Recognizing that fact and the opportunity this research
    represents, a bipartisan group of 34 Members of Congress have requested
    that the program be modestly increased to $15 million and be expanded
    to included all the blood cancers--the leukemias, lymphomas and
    myeloma. This would provide the research community with the flexibility
    to build on the pioneering tradition that has characterized this field.
        DOD research on the other forms of blood-related cancer addresses
    the importance of preparing for civilian and military exposure to the
    weapons being developed by several hostile nations and to aid in the
    march to more effective treatment for all who suffer from these
    diseases. This request clearly has merit for inclusion in the fiscal
    year 2006 legislation.
        The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society strongly endorses and
    enthusiastically supports this effort and respectfully urges the
    committee to include this funding in the fiscal year 2006 Defense
    Appropriations bill.
        We believe that building on the foundation Congress initiated over
    the past 4 years would both significantly strengthen the CDMRP and
    accelerate the development of cancer treatments. As history has
    demonstrated, expanding its focus into areas that demonstrate great
    promise; namely the blood-related cancers of leukemia, lymphoma and
    myeloma, would substantially aid the overall cancer research effort and
    yield great dividends.

        Senator Stevens. We try each year to do our best on this.
    These are very serious diseases and you have the great support
    of members of this subcommittee. Whether we have the money to
    do it is getting to be another matter. But we will do our best.
    Thank you very much.
        Ms. D'Innocenzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. No, thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Patricia Goldman,
    President Emeritus, and Ian Volvner, Ovarian Cancer National
    Alliance. Good afternoon.

    STATEMENTS OF:
            PATRICIA GOLDMAN, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, ON BEHALF OF THE OVARIAN
                CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
            IAN VOLVNER, ON BEHALF OF THE OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE

        Ms. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye. I
    am here today representing the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
    along with Ian Volvner. We are a patient-led organization and
    we are here to give you our personal perspectives on this and
    our activities.
        I am a very lucky lady. I am a 12 year survivor of ovarian
    cancer, and I suppose it is unusual to say you are lucky to
    have had a cancer, but in my case, where in ovarian cancer over
    half of the people who get this every year do not survive the
    5-year mark with this.
        One should not have to be lucky to survive ovarian cancer,
    and one of the things we are very grateful for for the research
    program that I am here to support is the progress we are
    beginning to make. Unlike breast, colon, cervical, there is no
    detection test that is applied for ovarian cancer. One of the
    things you may have seen in recent news accounts--and these
    have grown directly out of the research that has come from
    that--are the announcements of various biomarkers. We are not
    there yet, but it is exciting that the research is beginning to
    promise that has come out of this program that there may be a
    way if we keep at this to detect ovarian cancer.
        As a further example, we formed this organization 8 years
    ago. A third of the founding board members, all in their 50s,
    have succumbed to the disease. So I think you get a sense of
    where we are with this.
        Despite, as I mentioned, the terrible toll, we are
    beginning to make some progress. I am privileged, in addition,
    to serve on, have served on both the scientific review panels
    and the peer review panels of this very well managed program,
    in which case the patient advocates, the scientists, and the
    clinical physician sit together to review the programs. We have
    begun to find not only the markers, but some clinical evidence
    that can be applied. So we are very grateful for this program,
    and we respectfully request that the program be continued as it
    has been in the form, both with the request of $50 million for
    this.
        I will submit the rest of my examples for the record if I
    may, and I thank you for that. I will turn to Mr. Volvner to
    have Ian give you his perspective on this from his own
    experience.
        Senator Stevens. Please do.
        Mr. Volvner. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye: I am here today
    because my family----
        Senator Stevens. Would you pull the mike up toward you,
    please.
        Mr. Volvner. I am here today because my family is a two-
    time survivor of ovarian cancer. You do not know the terrible
    toll that this insidious disease takes on a family, and I
    cannot begin to try to explain it to you. What I can tell you
    is that the very real gains that Pat Goldman referred to that
    have been made as a result of the research performed under the
    Defense Department's cancer research program, ovarian cancer
    research program, made our second tour of duty, if you will,
    considerably easier than the first time my wife incurred this
    dreadful disease.
        The funding request that the Ovarian Cancer National
    Alliance has made is very modest. It is $15 million. The
    returns in terms of the relief of burden on the social system,
    on the health care program, on our country, are enormous, and
    in simple human terms. I really do not know that my wife would
    be here but for this program.
        So we thank you very much and we ask for your continued
    support of this very important but very modest financial
    program. Thank you.
        [The statements follow:]

           Prepared Statement of the Ovarian Cancer Research Program

                           STATEMENT OF IAN D. VOLNER

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ian Volner,
    and I am a lawyer here in Washington, DC. Over the years, I have
    testified in my professional capacity before Congress on numerous
    occasions on a variety of public issues. This is only the second time I
    have testified in my personal capacity. On both occasions, I have
    appeared before this subcommittee to thank you for your support of the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) and
    urge your continued support. I do so because my wife, Martha, our two
    sons, and I have ``survived'' ovarian cancer--not once, but twice.
        The purpose of my testimony is to assure you that the monies you
    invested in the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program over the past 9
    years have been wisely spent. We ask, therefore, that the funding level
    for this vital and very successful program be set at $15 million for
    fiscal year 2006.
        I first testified in support of the OCRP before the subcommittee in
    May of 2000. Two weeks later, Martha was diagnosed, for the second
    time, with ovarian cancer. Our first battle with this insidious disease
    occurred in 1994. At that time, Martha's cancer was not detected until
    a very advanced stage; her chances of living 5 years was less than 1 in
    3, and our sons were aged 13 and 10. Despite the odds, Martha survived
    due to the skill and dedication of her physicians and, in no small
    measure, because of their courage and hers. In 1994, the diagnostic
    tools were imprecise, unreliable and costly. The chemotherapy Martha
    underwent was designated as experimental, and its efficacy and side
    effects were not well understood.
        The situation was measurably different when Martha was diagnosed
    with ovarian cancer for the second time, in late May of 2000. It was
    clear even then that the research being done under the auspices of this
    appropriation was bearing fruit. While the diagnostic tools were still
    imprecise, the medical professional better understood the strengths and
    weaknesses of the available tools. Treatment options had also improved.
    Thus, while skill, dedication and courage were still vitally important
    to Martha's survival of her second bout with ovarian cancer, it was
    clear to our family that the research conducted by the OCRP was
    beginning to have effects, both in its own terms and, no less
    importantly, in fostering the development of a sustained commitment to
    ovarian cancer research.
        While the OCRP has been funded at a constant level for the past 3
    fiscal years, progress in diagnostics and treatment of ovarian cancer
    has been made. For example, research funded by the OCRP has resulted in
    the identification of new biomarkers that have the potential to alert
    doctors to the presence of ovarian cancer at an early stage. This could
    mean that in the future, women will not be exposed to the risks of late
    stage diagnosis as my wife was in 1994. Similarly, because of research
    funded by the OCRP, new and more effective treatments for this
    insidious disease are in development. In the future, women should not
    have to undergo the long and exhausting chemotherapy regime that Martha
    was subjected to in 1994.
        There has been little or no improvement in the survival rate for
    women who are diagnosed at a late stage. This disease moves with
    daunting speed, and the mortality rates are alarming. Due to the
    funding limits for this program, many research projects rated as
    outstanding or excellent have not been funded. Even a modest increase
    in funding would help to further the progress that has been made.
        When the subcommittee views the work that has been accomplished by
    the program in our written statements, I am sure it will agree that the
    money Congress appropriates for OCRP is being well spent. In some,
    perhaps immeasurable but nonetheless clear way, Martha is with us
    today--and is able to attend the graduation of each of her sons (now 24
    and 21) from college--thanks to this program. The human, economic and
    social returns of the modest investment in this program are enormous.
    As a proxy for the millions of women who will benefit from that
    investment, I urge the committee to appropriate $15 million for the
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2006.
        I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
    to testify at this important hearing today. I know it has been a long
    day for you. I am ready to answer any questions you may have.

                         STATEMENT OF PATRICIA GOLDMAN

        Senator Stevens, members of the subcommittee on Defense
    Appropriations, I am here today representing the Ovarian Cancer
    National Alliance (the Alliance), a patient-led organization that works
    to increase public and professional understanding of ovarian cancer and
    advocates for increased resources to support research on more effective
    ovarian cancer diagnostics and treatments. I thank you for the
    opportunity to submit comments for the record and to give you my very
    personal perspective on the program you are reviewing.
        I am a very lucky lady. I am a 12-year survivor of ovarian cancer--
    the deadliest of all gynecologic cancers. I am lucky because I am one
    of the rare women whose cancer was detected in an early and curable
    stage. Currently, more than half of the women diagnosed with ovarian
    cancer will die within 5 years of diagnosis. Therefore, I am here
    representing thousands of women who could not be here. One shouldn't
    have to be ``lucky'' to survive ovarian cancer.
        Because of extensive research and generous, sustained Federal
    investments, it is possible to diagnose and successfully treat many
    forms of cancer like breast, colon and prostate. Unfortunately, that is
    not yet the case for ovarian cancer. There is no screening test for
    ovarian cancer and few standard treatments. Federal programs for
    ovarian cancer continue to receive flat line funding for their already
    minimal budgets. In the 8 years since the Alliance was founded, a third
    of our founding board members have died and three more are being
    treated for a recurrence of their disease.
        The discouragement of this death toll is balanced by the hope
    engendered by the progress we are making through research to fulfill
    the mandate of the program you are reviewing today. Because of the
    Federal investment in the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program,
    researchers are identifying the mechanisms by which ovarian cancer is
    initiated in the body and how the disease spreads. The research
    community is also tantalizingly close to identifying a reliable and
    easily administered screening test, an achievement that could
    dramatically impact survival rates.
        I have been privileged to serve as a patient advocate on both the
    scientific and peer review panels for this program. One of the
    program's mandates is to attract new researchers to the field, and it
    has been encouraging to see the increase in the numbers of young
    research scientists who are dedicating themselves to ovarian cancer
    research. Yet, as a reviewer, I have been discouraged to see an
    expanding number of worthwhile research proposals that have been
    unfounded due to flat funding for the program over the past 3 years.
        In the testimony I am submitting for the record, I have recounted
    the accomplishments of this excellent program. I believe the program
    has followed Congress's directives directly and completely, which makes
    a strong case for it to be continued. For that reason the Alliance
    respectfully requests the subcommittee to provide $15 million for the
    program in fiscal year 2006. Thank you, Senator.

           OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

    Ovarian Cancer's Deadly Toll
        According to the American Cancer Society, in 2005, more than 22,000
    American women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and approximately
    16,000 will lose their lives to this terrible disease. Ovarian cancer
    is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women. Currently, more
    than half of the women diagnosed with ovarian cancer will die within 5
    years. Among African American women, only 48 percent survive 5 years or
    more. When detected early, the 5-year survival rate increases to more
    than 90 percent, but when detected in the late stages, as are most
    diagnoses, the 5-year survival rate drops to 28 percent.
        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 improved during
    the past decade, and a valid and reliable screening test--a critical
    tool for improving early diagnosis and survival rates--still does not
    yet exist for ovarian cancer. 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 effective early
    detection test--thousands of our sisters have lost their battle to
    ovarian cancer.
        Women should not have to rely on luck for their survival. Research
    must continue on this disease 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. The Ovarian Cancer Research Program at DOD has begun to
    tackle the multiple gaps in our knowledge of this deadly disease,
    providing a growing baseline understanding of ovarian cancer.
    The Ovarian Cancer Research Program at the Department of Defense
        Over the past 9 years, Congress has appropriated funds to support
    the Ovarian Cancer Research Program at DOD, which is modeled after the
    successful breast cancer program first included in the DOD budget in
    1992. The Ovarian Cancer Research Program supports innovative,
    integrated, multidisciplinary research efforts that will lead to better
    understanding, detection, diagnosis, prevention, and control of ovarian
    cancer. The program shares the Alliance's mission and objective of
    reducing and preventing--and eventually--eliminating ovarian cancer.
        Awards made by the 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. Research
    awards are determined using a two-tier review process of peer and
    programmatic review that ensures scientific merit and attainment of
    program goals. The two-tier process is the hallmark of the
    Congressional Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) and
    increasingly has served as a model for research programs throughout the
    world. Another important element in the execution of the Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program is the collaboration of advisors from the scientific,
    clinical, and consumer communities in the program. These advisors
    provide important guidance regarding funding strategies and serve on
    both levels of review.
        In addition, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program has developed a
    funding strategy to complement awards made by other agencies and has
    taken steps to ensure that the duplication of long-term basic research
    supported by the National Institutes of Health is avoided. Importantly
    the program offers several awards that specifically seek to fill gaps
    in ongoing research and complement initiatives sponsored by other
    agencies.
        Like all of the CDMRP Programs at DOD, the Ovarian Cancer Research
    Program serves as an international model in administrative efficiency
    for research programs. Integrating the latest technology and
    communications, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program only has a 5.64
    percent management cost. The program has a quick turnaround time of 6
    months from the initial proposal review (including two-tier review), to
    distribution of funds to investigators--speeding up the process of
    study concept to research conclusion.
    Scientific Achievements of the Ovarian Cancer Research Program
        Since its inception, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program at DOD has
    developed a multidisciplinary research portfolio that encompasses
    etiology, prevention, early detection/diagnosis, preclinical
    therapeutics, quality of life, and behavioral research projects. The
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program strengthens the Federal Government's
    commitment to ovarian cancer research and supports innovative and novel
    projects that propose new ways of examining prevention, early detection
    and treatment. The program also attracts new investigators into ovarian
    cancer research and encourages proposals that address the needs of
    minority, elderly, low-income, rural and other commonly
    underrepresented populations.
        The program's achievements have been documented in numerous ways,
    including 131 publications in professional medical journals and books;
    169 abstracts and presentations given at professional meetings; and six
    patents, applications and licenses granted to awardees of the program.
    The program has also introduced and supported 33 new investigators in
    the field of ovarian cancer research.
        Investigators funded through the Ovarian Cancer Research Program
    have yielded several crucial breakthroughs in the study of prevention
    and detection, including:
      --Recognition of the role of the progestins, hormonal components
            found in oral contraceptives, as a key agent in reducing the
            risk of ovarian cancer;
      --Identification of several new biomarkers that have the potential to
            alert health care providers to the presence of early stage
            ovarian cancer, and be used to develop an early detection tool
            which would significantly improve early detection and survival;
            and
      --Discovery of three new agents that inhibit tumor growth and
            spreading, as well as new blood vessel formation
            (angiogenesis)--a development that will result in new and more
            effective treatments.
    Increased Investment Needed
        In fiscal year 2005, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program received
    222 proposals, but due to resource limitations, was only able to fund
    17 awards. The program has received $10 million for the past 3 years
    and when inflation is taken into account, the allocation of $10 million
    actually represents an overall diminished level of funding. With new
    funding, the 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.
        The Ovarian Cancer Research Program has helped leverage and
    maximize both public and private sector funding. Awardees have cited
    DOD support as an impetus for the maturation of clinical trials, which
    led to an increase of locally funded ovarian cancer grants.
        The fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2003 awards have led to the
    recruitment of more than 33 new investigators into the ovarian cancer
    research field. Additionally, the Fox Chase Cancer Center in
    Philadelphia and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle
    reported that the progress made during the first year of their DOD
    Program Project Awards enabled both institutions to successfully
    compete for National Cancer Institute SPOREs (Specialized Programs of
    Research Excellence) Awards to fund additional long-term ovarian cancer
    research.
        Despite progress made, we still do not fully understand the risks
    factors, symptoms and causes of ovarian cancer. No effective screening
    tool exists to detect the disease at early stages and the devastating
    mortality rates remain the same year after year. The DOD Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program is developing science and scientists to help us
    achieve the necessary breakthroughs desperately needed in the field of
    ovarian cancer. Biomedical research--particularly in such insidious and
    complex conditions as ovarian cancer--requires a sustained, long-term
    investment and commitment in order to make significant gains. The
    investment the Congress and the DOD have made in the Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program to date is appreciated and has helped move the field
    forward; however, without new resources the program will be unable to
    maintain the status quo--let alone continue to reap benefits from
    previous and current Federal investments.
    Summary and Conclusion
        As an umbrella organization with 46 State and local groups, the
    Alliance unites the efforts of more than 500,000 grassroots activists,
    women's health advocates, and health care professionals to bring
    national attention to ovarian cancer. As part of this effort, the
    Alliance advocates sustained Federal investment in the Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program at DOD. The Alliance respectfully requests the
    subcommittee to provide $15 million for the program in fiscal year
    2006.
        The Alliance maintains a longstanding 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 that 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 losing their battle with this terrible disease. Thank you for
    your consideration of our views and for supporting increased funding
    for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program in fiscal year 2006.
        On behalf of the entire ovarian cancer community--patients, family
    members, clinicians and researchers--we thank you for your leadership
    and support of Federal programs that seek to reduce and prevent
    suffering from ovarian cancer.
        Material in this testimony was partly taken from the
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program's Ovarian Cancer
    program Web site at http://cdmrp.army.mil.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Most people do not realize this, but a very
    significant number of Members of the Senate or members of their
    immediate family have been afflicted by this terrible, terrible
    disease one way or the other.
        Ms. Goldman. I am aware. I did not specify this in
    particular, but we all know in fact one of the Senators' wife
    is experiencing a recurrence again of her disease, which I am
    sure is what you are referring to.
        Senator Stevens. Despite differences, it is a very close
    family. We all know that.
        Ms. Goldman. Indeed.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Goldman. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. The next witness is Brigadier General
    Stephen Koper, President of the National Guard Association. It
    is nice to have you back, General.

    STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN KOPER, U.S. AIR
                FORCE (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD
                ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
        General Koper. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stevens,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
    testify today. You have always been champions of the citizen-
    soldier and citizen-airman and the National Guard Association
    (NGAUS) thanks you for your many years of outstanding support.
    This subcommittee is well versed in the contributions being
    made by the members of the National Guard in Operation Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and the global war on terror.
        As the Secretary of Defense has said repeatedly, the war on
    terror could not be fought without the National Guard. Battles
    would not be won, peace would not be kept, and sorties would
    not be flown without the citizen-soldier and citizen-airmen. We
    are asking on their behalf for the resources necessary to allow
    them to continue to serve the Nation.
        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 cost-share basis regardless of duty status. While
    we are encouraged by the establishment of TRICARE Reserve
    Select, which is a program where members earn medical coverage
    through deployments, we do not believe it goes far enough.
        Health care coverage for our members is a readiness issue.
    If the Department of Defense expects Guard members to maintain
    medical readiness, then it follows that they should also have
    access to health care. As you know, when a National Guardsman
    is called to full-time duty he or she is expected to report
    ready for duty. Yet studies show that a significant percentage
    of our members do not have access to health care. Making
    TRICARE available to all members of the National Guard on a
    cost-share basis would provide a solution to this problem and
    it 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.
        In addition to addressing readiness concerns, access to
    TRICARE will also be a strong recruitment and retention
    incentive. In an increasingly challenging recruitment and
    retention environment, TRICARE could make a significant
    difference. Part-time civilian Federal employees are eligible
    to participate in Federal health insurance programs. NGAUS
    believes that National Guard members should receive at a
    minimum the opportunity afforded to other Federal part-time
    employees.
        Another issue of serious concern is full-time manning for
    the Army National Guard. For many years the Army National Guard
    full-time manning has been funded at approximately 58 percent
    of the validated requirements. All other Reserve components are
    manned at significantly higher levels. Recognizing this
    disparity, Congress, the Army, and the Army National Guard
    agreed to increase the Army Guard's full-time manning to a
    level of 71 percent by 2012. This increase was to be obtained
    through gradual increases in Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and
    technician end strength. However, the wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan have further exacerbated the problem as it is the
    full-time staff that bears the bulk of the increased workload
    associated with mobilization.
        Consequently, we believe acceleration in the ramp is
    warranted. NGAUS believes there is a requirement to reach the
    71 percent full-time level by 2010 versus the current target of
    2012. This would require an increase in fiscal year 2006 of $12
    million for an additional 292 AGRs and $6.2 million for 195
    military technicians. Obviously, our ultimate goal is to reach
    100 percent of validated requirements, and sooner rather than
    later.
        NGAUS is also very concerned about equipment for the Army
    National Guard. When Army National Guard gets deployed to Iraq
    they deploy with their equipment. In most cases this equipment
    remains in theater when the unit returns home. The end result
    is that units cannot adequately train for the next rotation and
    they may not be equipped to meet an emergency at home, whether
    it is a natural disaster or terrorist act.
        High on the priority list of Army Guard equipment
    shortfalls is the Humvee. The Army National Guard is critically
    short more than 13,000 of the nearly 42,000 vehicles required.
    In Alaska the Army Guard has only 62 of the 151 vehicles
    required, leaving the State 41 percent short of requirements.
        The current President's budget request does not fully
    address the National Guard shortfall. Also, we understand there
    is money for Humvees in the supplemental, but it is not clear
    how much of the funds will go to provide equipment for the Army
    National Guard. NGAUS urges Congress to continue to support
    funding for Humvees and to ensure that the Army takes the needs
    of the Guard into consideration while procuring these vehicles.
    NGAUS also encourages the subcommittee to continue to support
    the procurement of up-armored Humvees for the Guard. While the
    Army has made a valiant commitment to procure armored Humvees
    for use in theater, we also recognize the need for up-armored
    vehicles for the homeland defense mission. Congress needs to
    provide additional earmarked funds to guarantee continued
    armored vehicle production.
        Army Guard aviation is also a top priority. The extremely
    high operational tempos of our Operation Enduring Freedom and
    Iraqi Freedom have increased the demand for aviation assets.
    For Guard units, aviation assets are also critical for many
    State missions. HH-60 medevac units continue to have the
    highest operational tempo of any fixed wing or rotary aircraft
    in theater today and NGAUS requests the committee favorably
    consider funding the UH-60s and medevac aircraft.
        Mr. Chairman, I submitted testimony earlier and I have
    revised my closing remarks and I would like to skip to that now
    if I may. In closing, I will address a serious concern we have
    regarding the Air Force Future Total Force, FTF, concept. With
    the release of DOD's BRAC list on May 13, our worst fears for
    the future of the Air National Guard have been confirmed. The
    Future Total Force was developed over the course of the last 2
    years, cloaked in secrecy, and it did not include the adjutants
    general from its inception.
        When reports of the direction and scope of the Air Force
    plan began to surface in the Guard community, the adjutants
    general individually and collectively expressed their concerns.
    Those concerns were dismissed. The adjutants general were
    finally admitted collectively to the process in October 2004.
        Concurrently, the 2005 BRAC process provided an
    opportunity, again secure from scrutiny and debate, for the Air
    Force to carry out a reduction of fighter, transport, and
    tanker force structure in the Air National Guard without
    benefit of a detailed follow-on mission plan. It even spawned a
    new category of BRAC action for the Air National Guard called
    ``enclaved.'' In layman's terms, that means the unit aircraft
    have been removed but the personnel will either stay, commute
    to a new base, or leave the force.
        Now the challenge of airing out the full impact of FTF has
    been dumped on the doorstep of the Congress and the BRAC
    Commission. Our concerns include the question as to whether the
    2005 BRAC will meet the requirements of the 2005 quadrennial
    defense review (QDR), or will the QDR merely be written to
    support the BRAC? Why not offer the continued upgrade of F-15
    and F-16 aircraft and their systems that will have relevance
    well into the 2020s as an informed alternative to increased
    buys of new weapons platforms?
        The enclaved units will threaten our ability to maintain a
    skilled and stable workforce. While the active Air Force can
    routinely move its personnel assets to follow its weapons
    systems, we see the potential for severe personnel losses
    because of their traditional ties to a community. It is the
    cornerstone of the militia.
        Our members fully understand the need to modernize the Air
    Force, but we want to make sure that it is done in a prudent
    manner that will best protect the interests of the Nation. We
    will continue to urge the Congress and the BRAC Commission to
    closely scrutinize these initiatives to ensure that decisions
    regarding Air National Guard force structure are based on sound
    strategic principles.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I sincerely
    thank you for your time today and I am happy to answer any
    questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Brigadier General (Ret.) Stephen M. Koper

        Chairman Stevens, members of the committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify today. You have always been champions of the
    citizen soldier and citizen airman and the National Guard Association
    thanks you for your many years of outstanding support.
        This committee is well versed in the contributions being made by
    members of the National Guard in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
    the Global War on Terror. As the Secretary of Defense has said
    repeatedly, ``The War on Terror could not be fought without the
    National Guard''. Battles would not be won, peace would not be kept and
    sorties would not be flown without the citizen soldier and citizen
    airman. We are asking on their behalf for the resources necessary to
    allow them to continue to serve the Nation.
        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 cost-share
    basis, regardless of duty status.
        While we are encouraged by the establishment of TRICARE Reserve
    Select, which is a program where members ``earn'' medical coverage
    through deployments, we don't believe it goes far enough. Healthcare
    coverage for our members is a readiness issue. If the Department of
    Defense expects Guard members to maintain medical readiness, then it
    follows that they should also have access to healthcare. As you know,
    when a National Guardsman is called to full time duty, he or she is
    expected to report ``ready for duty''. Yet, studies show that a
    significant percentage of our members do not have access to healthcare.
    Making TRICARE available to all members of the National Guard, on a
    cost-share basis, would provide a solution to this problem. And, it
    would finally end the turbulence visited on soldiers and their families
    who are forced to transition from one healthcare coverage to another
    each time they answer the Nation's call.
        In addition to addressing readiness concerns, 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. Part-time civilian Federal
    employees are eligible to participate in Federal health insurance
    programs. NGAUS believes that National Guard members should receive, at
    a minimum, the opportunity afforded other Federal part-time employees.
        Currently in the Senate, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Hillary
    Clinton, have co-sponsored a bill which would provide TRICARE, on a
    cost-share basis, to every member of the National Guard. NGAUS fully
    supports this bill, and asks the members of the committee to do the
    same by including the cost for this program in the Appropriations mark-
    up.
        Another issue of serious concern is full time manning for the Army
    National Guard. For many years the Army National Guard full time
    manning has been funded at approximately 58 percent of the validated
    requirements. All other reserve components are manned at significantly
    higher levels.
        Recognizing this disparity, the Congress, the Army and the Army
    National Guard agreed to increase the Army Guard's full time manning to
    a level of 71 percent by 2012. This increase was to be attained through
    gradual increases in AGR and technician end strength.
        However, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further exacerbated
    the problem since it is the full time staff that bears the brunt of the
    increased work load associated with mobilization. Consequently, we
    believe acceleration in the ramp is warranted.
        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. This would require an increase
    in fiscal year 2006 of $12 million for an additional 292 AGRs and $6.2
    million for 195 military technicians. Obviously, our ultimate goal is
    to reach 100 percent of validated requirements and sooner, rather than
    later.
        NGAUS is also very concerned about equipment for the Army National
    Guard. When Army National Guard units deploy to Iraq, they deploy with
    their equipment. In most cases, this equipment remains in theater when
    the unit returns home. The end result that units cannot adequately
    train for the next rotation, and they may not be equipped to meet an
    emergency at home, whether it is a natural disaster or terrorist
    attack.
        High on the priority list of Army Guard equipment shortfalls is the
    HMMWV. The ARNG is critically short 13,581 of the nearly 42,000
    vehicles required. In Alaska, the Army Guard has only 62 of the 151
    vehicles required, leaving the State 41 percent short of its
    requirements. The current President's Budget request does not fully
    address the National Guard's shortfall. Also, we understand there is
    money for HMMWVs in the supplemental but it is not clear how much of
    the funds will go to provide equipment for the Army National Guard. The
    National Guard Association of the United States urges the Congress to
    continue to support funding for HMMWVs and to insure that the Army
    takes the needs of the Guard into consideration when procuring these
    vehicles.
        NGAUS also encourages the committee to continue to support the
    procurement of Up-Armored HMMWVs for the Guard. While the Army has made
    a valiant commitment to procure Up-Armored HMMWVs for use in theater,
    we also recognize a need for Up-Armored vehicles fort the Homeland
    Defense mission. Congress needs to provide additional earmarked funds
    to guarantee continued armored vehicle production until all deployed
    combat units have properly armored vehicles and Army National Guard Up-
    Armored HMMWV requirements inside the United States are backfilled.
        Army Guard aviation is also a top priority. The extremely high
    operational tempos of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom have increased the demand for aviation assets while the
    environment and enemy conditions have reduced the number of aircraft.
    For Guard units, aviation assets are also critical for many State
    missions. HH-60 MEDEVAC units continue to have the highest operational
    tempo of any fixed wing or rotary aircraft in theater today.
        NGAUS requests that the committee favorably consider funding for
    UH-60s and MEDEVAC aircraft.
        On the Air Guard side, our equipment needs are also directly tied
    to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, the C-130 is the
    workhorse of the Air Force, and a large segment of that force resides
    in the Air National Guard. These aircraft are vulnerable to enemy
    attack when flying in hostile areas. One of the primary threats is the
    proliferation of shoulder fired infrared missiles.
        LAIRCM, Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures, would provide
    added protection from infrared missiles to C-130 crews flying in
    hostile areas. We are requesting $34.5 million for LAIRCM for the ANG
    C-130 fleet.
        Thanks to the Congress, one of the greatest Air Guard success
    stories is the procurement of targeting pods for fighter aircraft.
    Money added by the Congress over the past several years has enabled the
    Air Guard to be on the front line of air operations in Iraq. To
    continue this successful program, we are requesting an appropriation
    for an additional 15 pods in fiscal year 2006.
        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. Mr. Chairman, each and
    every dollar that has been appropriated over the years in the 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.
        Chairman Stevens, I've highlighted some of the top procurement
    items which are urgently needed by the Army Guard and the Air Guard,
    but unfortunately, that is not an exhaustive list. Your professional
    staff has graciously agreed to meet with us and we will discuss
    additional Guard equipment requirements with them.
        In closing, I will address a serious concern we have regarding the
    Air Force's Future Total Force concept. We urge the Congress to closely
    scrutinize this initiative to ensure that decisions regarding Air
    National Guard force structure are based on sound strategic principles.
        Over the past several years, the Congress has wisely invested money
    in upgrading the Air Guard's F-16 fleet to keep it relevant well into
    the 2020's. Faced with a growing deficit and a turbulent world, it
    seems imprudent to send capable aircraft to the bone yard. Yet, this is
    what we fear the Air Force is planning to do when in fact we believe
    they should be fully utilizing all the resources which the tax payers
    have already funded.
        The Air National Guard has been at the forefront of providing the
    air defense of the Nation, as well as playing a major role in the Air
    Expeditionary Force. Yet, the Air Force has not fully addressed how it
    will meet these mission requirements with a significantly reduced Air
    Guard fighter force.
        NGAUS believes the Air Force should provide details to the Congress
    on how it intends to meet critical national defense requirements at the
    same time it plans to drawdown significant amounts of Air Guard fighter
    force structure.
        Our members fully understand the need to modernize the Air Force,
    but we want to make sure that it is done in a prudent manner that will
    best protect the interests of national defense. We hope that Congress
    will continue to ask the Air Force for more details as the plan
    unfolds.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I sincerely thank you for
    your time today and am happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Bond has come in, General, and I
    want to recognize Senator Bond. He came particularly on notice
    that we gave him you would be here.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Inouye. I had an Intelligence hearing, but this was so
    important, and I very much appreciate your having Brigadier
    General Koper, President of the National Guard Association,
    speaking out about his concerns relating to the BRAC report.
        As you know from previous sessions we have had with the
    Secretary of Defense and the chief, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I had concerns prior to
    the release and now I think what General Koper has just cited
    is something that should be read by every Member of the United
    States Congress. When he said the Future Total Force was
    developed over the course of the last 2 years cloaked in
    secrecy and did not include the adjutants general from its
    inception, well, I think that is accurate. It appears that the
    Pentagon had its mind made up, and there are very, very
    significant implications for maintaining the civilian force,
    the civilian fighters that we have so often relied on and now
    rely on for 50 percent of the force in Iraq.
        As I said, I raised these concerns 2 months ago.
    Unfortunately, those concerns and the concerns expressed by the
    Guard leaders were ignored. The result is a BRAC list that is
    absolutely stunning. It will eliminate over one-third of the
    Air Guard's aviation assets. In the tactical air forces
    (TACAIR) alone there would be 12 F-16 wings and 3 F-15 wings
    gone, poof. It would adversely impact, as the General said,
    community basing concept the Guard relies so heavily upon in
    recruiting and retention. In an area that I do not know that we
    have adequately touched on, it would adversely compromise our
    Nation's ability to defend the skies over our homeland, because
    it ignores the very significant role that the Air National
    Guard provides in the homeland defense mission, specifically
    the conduct of Operation Noble Eagle.
        Finally, I think it shortsightedly undermines the Air
    Guard's proven, effective, and invaluable expeditionary role.
    If we continue to shortchange the Guard, if we treat them as an
    unwanted stepchild, particularly in this Future Total Force of
    our air assets--and I made a freudian slip last hearing when I
    called it a ``feudal total force.'' I did not mean to do that,
    but unfortunately my words have appeared to come true.
        I have asked the chairman of the BRAC Commission to hold a
    hearing in St. Louis, where I hope to discuss the shortfalls of
    the Pentagon's BRAC plan and try to work with my colleagues who
    also share my concern about and commitment to the National
    Guard, the Pentagon's plan irreparably harming the Air National
    Guard.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just pose one question to the General
    if it is appropriate now.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bond. In your view, General, were Guard leaders
    allowed a substantive role in the planning of the Future Total
    Force strategy, and if not what is the impact on the Guard of
    the BRAC process? What are your conclusions from these actions
    and the results?
        General Koper. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bond, as I said in my
    closing remarks, it is the view of the adjutants general that
    collectively they were not included in the development of the
    Future Total Force from its inception. They were fed bits and
    pieces, and not until October 2004 did they manage to get some
    regular representation in the general officer steering
    committee on Future Total Force.
        With respect to BRAC, the BRAC, as I also earlier
    indicated, is by its very nature a process which deals in
    confidentiality. The adjutants general were not a player in the
    gathering of facts with respect to units of the Army and Air
    National Guard.
        I would say this to you, however. The Army National Guard,
    as all of you are well aware, is loaded down with terribly
    outdated facilities in armories across the country. The Army
    National Guard and the Army full well recognize that the
    military construction process is never going to be able to
    solve that issue. The Army and the Army National Guard have
    come up with a rather creative plan to utilize the BRAC process
    to close and consolidate a large number of those kinds of
    installations. It probably makes good sense.
        So with respect to the Army National Guard, I believe there
    was at least some long-term general conversations between State
    adjutants general about Army National Guard facilities, not an
    official part of the BRAC process because they don't have an
    active role in that.
        On the Air National Guard side, the adjutants general that
    I have spoken to since the release of the list on Friday are
    finding out things that of course they did not know. So we have
    only had since Friday to determine the full impact of that, but
    we will be continuing to do that.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. I am glad to learn that they consulted with
    the Army National Guard.
        General Koper. You bet. And I would add, sir, that as a
    former blue suiter I am a little embarrassed. We have had a
    reputation for a great relationship and we are at a total loss
    to determine why this has come about.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, General, and we are at a loss to
    understand how this relates to the Total Force Concept, this
    movement of forces to the South and to the East, particularly
    with the almost denuding of the forces that face the Pacific.
    Very difficult for us to understand. We intend to go into it
    pretty deeply here soon. We have some other problems ahead of
    us right now, but as soon as we can start scheduling some
    hearings we are going to schedule some hearings on this process
    and listen to some people.
        I am not sure there is much we can do about it, now the
    BRAC process has started, except to try to enlighten the BRAC
    people themselves. I think we should do that.
        So we thank you for your contribution.
        General Koper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Mary Ann----
        Ms. Guerra. Guerra.
        Senator Stevens. Guerra, thank you. Vice President,
    Research Operations, for Translational----
        Ms. Guerra. Genomics Research Institute, TGen. We call it
    ``TGen'' for short.
        Senator Stevens. My eyes hurt today. Maybe you can tell me
    a little bit of research about that.

    STATEMENT OF MARY ANN GUERRA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
                RESEARCH OPERATIONS, TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS
                RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ON BEHALF OF THE
                NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER COALITION
        Ms. Guerra. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
    It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. Thank you for your
    time.
        I enthusiastically offer testimony on behalf of the
    National Prostate Cancer Coalition. From 1994 to 2001 I served
    as the Deputy Director for Management of the National Cancer
    Institute (NCI), where I watched this prostate cancer program
    grow, launch, and flourish. I also recently served on the
    congressionally sponsored Institute of Medicine panel that was
    asked to evaluate alternative funding strategies that could
    leverage DOD research programs.
        My organization, TGen, is a leading private sector
    biomedical research institute focused on identifying genes that
    can quickly be translated into diagnostics and therapeutics to
    serve the American public to improve health. Thus, these
    combined career experiences have made me a congressionally
    directed medical research program (CDMRP) convert and a strong
    supporter of the prostate cancer research program (PCRP),
    because they fill a research niche that is not served by other
    programs, including the NCI.
        These programs achieve two important objectives. First,
    they provide innovative programs that support early stage high
    risk and novel research. They also fund programs that
    specifically support the translation of discoveries into
    products that improve lives. The translational component is an
    essential and sometimes missing ingredient in the discovery to
    bedside process. You might find it astonishing that while the
    rate of R&D spending at the NIH and in pharma has gone up since
    1993, the number of new drug applications has gone down. In
    simple words, discoveries are not being translated into drugs
    that serve the people of the United States.
        These principles of translation and acceleration govern the
    venture research sponsored by the PCRP in its relentless effort
    to change the course of prostate cancer, the most commonly
    diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of
    cancer death in men. The facts are in 2005, 232,000 men will be
    diagnosed with prostate cancer. They will join the 2 million
    men already diagnosed. Over 30,000 of these men will die of
    cancer this year.
        African-Americans will be harder hit, with occurrence rates
    nearly 65 percent greater and death rates 2.5 times greater
    than Caucasian men.
        The Veterans Administration estimates that there are
    roughly 24.7 million male veterans living in the United States.
    The impact of percent on them? 4.1 million veterans will be
    diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime. Nearly 5,000
    patients in the VA system will be diagnosed with prostate
    cancer this year.
        A recent scientific study has also shown that cancer rates
    are increased among service men who were in Southeast Asia and
    that men whose assignments averaged more than the normal, the
    average tour of duty, are at a greater risk of prostate cancer.
        But let me bring this even closer to home. The Department
    of Defense estimated that the direct costs of prostate cancer
    on the military were expected to exceed $42 million in 2004 and
    nearly 85 percent of the 1.4 million individuals serving in
    America's military are men. The impact? 200,000 service men
    will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The DOD, America's
    largest company, must be prepared to protect its employees from
    the killer that will affect 14 percent of their workforce.
        Thanks to your vision and leadership, the CDMRP has become
    the gold standard for conducting and administering cancer
    research. To effectively fight this war on prostate cancer and
    to leverage your already earlier investments, the committee
    must appropriate $100 million for the PCRP. Without such an
    investment, the translation pipeline remains closed and this
    investment in the valuable research already funded will not be
    translated into discoveries that are used in the lab--in the
    clinic.
        Two years ago this subcommittee requested that the DOD, in
    consultation with the Institute of Medicine, evaluate
    opportunities for public and private sector funding
    collaborations to reduce the burden of Federal appropriations
    for the CDMRP. Those of us who served on that committee found
    that there are no new funding sources because these programs
    fund research that is not funded by the private sector. Our
    panel found that we have--this program has been efficiently and
    effectively managed, with only a 6 percent overhead rate. They
    have created novel funding mechanisms for that early and
    translational research that is not being done in other
    institutions. They have been scientifically productive and they
    play an important role in the national health research
    enterprise.
        The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation conference is a
    great example of a private-public partnership. This panel
    brings together all Government people that are working on
    cancer research along with their private counterparts. This
    parent consumer research group looks for innovation in
    translation rather than funding small incremental science that
    is sometimes funded in other agencies. As co-conveners of this
    conference, the PCRP helps establish priorities.
        For this conference to be successful, Federal agencies
    engaged in cancer research should be required to participate in
    this conference, and we are asking that you lend your
    leadership to make this participation required. We need more
    leveraging of the existing resources and a broader and more
    active engagement of our Federal agencies to accomplish this
    important objective. No one institution, scientific discipline,
    or business sector is solely equipped to fully translate
    discoveries into products. Government, academia, and industry
    must be brought together to solve these complex problems that
    are affecting our Nation and our families. Moreover, Congress
    must encourage them to cooperate together.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, we have done remarkable work
    and are making progress. I urge you to continue to support an
    enhanced growth of PCRP, a program that is efficient, is driven
    by scientific priorities, and is scientifically productive.
        The war on prostate cancer must be funded appropriately so
    researchers can get new drugs to patients who need them most.
    For this to happen, the PCRP needs $100 million in fiscal year
    2006 and I respectfully request that you appropriate this need.
        Thank you for the time and I would be glad to answer any
    questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Mary Ann Guerra

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee, good morning. My name is Mary Ann Guerra, and I am Senior
    Vice President for Operations at the Translational Genomics Research
    Institute (TGen) in Phoenix, Arizona, a not-for-profit research
    enterprise. From 1994 until 2001, I served as Deputy Director for
    Management at the National Cancer Institute, and I am thoroughly
    familiar with the prostate cancer research effort and portfolio at the
    NCI. During my time at NCI, I watched the Department of Defense
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) in prostate
    cancer grow and flourish since its inception at Fort Detrick in 1997. I
    also served on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel that Congress
    asked to evaluate leveraging strategies for funding of DOD peer
    reviewed medical research programs in order to reduce the burden on
    Federal appropriations. While our IOM panel did not include a formal
    evaluation of the CDMRP programs, I can tell you that I was very
    impressed by their scope and breadth--doing what parallel research
    efforts the NCI cannot do, and serving as a crucial part of this
    Nation's biomedical research effort to beat serious, often life
    threatening diseases. I must say, my past experience at NCI and NIH, my
    recent experience in the private sector, and the knowledge gained
    through participating in the IOM review, made me a convert and strong
    supporter of the CDMRP. Consequently, I am particularly pleased to
    offer testimony on behalf of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition,
    supporting an appropriation of $100 million for the CDMRP Prostate
    Cancer Research Program (PCRP) for fiscal year 2006.
        My organization, TGen, is among the world's leading private sector
    biomedical research institutes. It strives to make and quickly
    translate genomic discoveries into diagnostic and therapeutics that
    improve the health of all Americans. Our prostate cancer research
    program, headed by Dr. John Carpten, uses cutting edge technology to
    search for genes predisposing to prostate cancer, particularly among
    special populations including African American men, the population
    hardest hit by this devastating disease. Using information generated
    from mapping the human genome, coupled with our technology, TGen can
    now conduct large family and population based studies not possible
    before. With the patient who suffers from disease as our focus, TGen is
    guided by three core principles: integration, translation and
    acceleration. We integrate the best and brightest scientists across
    disciplines to attack disease; we hasten the translation of research
    discoveries into meaningful therapies; and, through our academic,
    health and industry partnerships, we accelerate our research goals on
    behalf of those who need them most.
        The same kinds of principles govern venture research sponsored by
    the PCRP in its effort to change the course of prostate cancer, the
    nation's most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading
    cause of cancer death among men. In 2005, the American Cancer Society
    has estimated that more than 232,000 men will hear physicians tell
    them, ``You have prostate cancer,'' as they join the nearly 2 million
    Americans who already have the disease. Sadly, over 30,000 men will
    lose their lives to prostate cancer this year. Although the wider use
    of early detection along with changes in early treatment likely account
    for the near 100 percent survival of men with localized disease, too
    many men are still diagnosed with advanced disease, particularly at
    younger ages (in their 40's and 50's), too many men suffer advanced
    recurrences after an earlier successful treatment, and too many
    ultimately face no cure.
        However hard prostate cancer may hit among white families, it is
    regularly a tragedy in African American communities. Prostate cancer
    occurrences rates are nearly 65 percent higher among black Americans
    and death rates are nearly 2\1/2\ times greater than those of Caucasian
    men. Research dollars directed at special populations is not a high
    priority as evidenced by the overall funding expended on such studies.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that there are
    roughly 24.7 million male veterans living in the United States. That
    means at least 4.1 million veterans will be diagnosed with prostate
    cancer at some point during their lifetimes. The Veterans Health
    Administration currently estimates that nearly 5,000 patients in its
    system are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year. While evidence is
    not conclusive, it appears that America's servicemen, who stood in
    harm's way for their country in the Asian theater and were directly
    exposed to Agent Orange, may be at double the risk for prostate cancer.
    Moreover, a recent scientific study has shown that cancer rates are
    increased among men who were in uniform in Southeast Asia, even if they
    were not directly involved in spraying herbicides, and that men who had
    longer than average tours of duty in the Asian theater may be at
    particular risk of prostate cancer. With our brave men in uniform in
    mind, I am asking you today to take care of all of them, past, present
    and future.
        The Department of Defense estimated the direct health care costs of
    prostate cancer on the military were expected to be over $42 million in
    fiscal year 2004. Nearly 85 percent of the current 1,465,000
    individuals serving in America's military are men. That means about
    200,000 servicemen will be diagnosed with prostate cancer--without the
    additional consideration of service related environmental factors, like
    Agent Orange exposure, that may increase occurrences of the disease.
    The DOD refers to itself as America's largest company; it must
    therefore be prepared to protect its employees from a killer that will
    affect 14 percent of its workforce.
        Whether in battle or peacetime, the lives of men from coast to
    coast depend on your decisions. You have the unique opportunity to
    provide a brighter future for millions of men and families through
    continued and expanded prostate cancer research. With proper funding we
    can find a way to end the pain and suffering caused by this disease.
        To effectively fight the war on prostate cancer for America's
    families, your committee must appropriate $100 million for the PCRP. As
    stated in its fiscal year 1997 business plan, PCRP needs at least $100
    million to conduct human clinical trials research. Without that
    appropriation, the program is unable to test new treatments and get
    those new products to patients that could retard the course of their
    disease and improve the quality of their lives. Without such an
    investment, the translational pipeline remains closed, meaning that
    valuable prostate cancer research remains stuck in laboratories instead
    of at work in clinics.
        Thanks to your vision and leadership, CDMRP has become the gold
    standard for administering cancer research. Prostate cancer advocates
    and scientists throughout this Nation have long applauded the program
    and its peer and consumer driven approach to research. PCRP is a unique
    program within the government's prostate cancer research portfolio
    because it makes use of public/private partnerships, awards competitive
    grants for new ideas, does not duplicate the work of other funders,
    integrates scientists and survivors and uses a unique perspective to
    solve problems. Its mission and its results are clear. The program
    fills a niche that other Federal research programs do not. It funds
    research with the end in mind; funding science that advances solutions
    that will change the lives of the people who are diagnosed with this
    disease. Each year, the program issues an annual report detailing what
    it has done with taxpayer dollars to battle prostate cancer. PCRP's
    transparency allows people affected by prostate cancer and people in
    the consumer research community to clearly see what our government is
    doing to fight the disease.
        Two years ago, this committee requested that DOD, in consultation
    with the Institute of Medicine, evaluate opportunities for public and
    private sector funding collaborations to reduce the burden of Federal
    appropriations for CDMRP--and maintain or improve efficiencies,
    throughput and outcomes for its research programs. Those of us who
    served on the IOM task force determined that, on the whole, there are
    no new funding sources for CDMRP that would enhance its overall
    research effort, because the redirection of dollars would reduce the
    work those dollars provide in some other part of the research universe.
    While it was not part of our charge, we also had an opportunity to
    appreciate the special contribution that the CDMRP makes to the
    research landscape.
        Our panel noted that despite initial respect for the primacy of
    NCI, skepticism about CDMRP in the scientific community, its location
    in DOD and the participation of consumers in peer review and priority
    setting, the program has been efficiently and effectively managed,
    scientifically productive and a valuable component of the Nation's
    health research enterprise. CDMRP's distinctive program features
    include its rigorous peer review of proposals for scientific merit and
    program relevance by outside reviewers--including consumers; its
    inclusive priority setting process; its emphasis on exploratory high-
    risk/high-gain basic, translational, and clinical research projects and
    on research capacity building; and its holding of periodic national
    meetings to share results among the investigators and with the
    program's constituencies. It can also do what NCI cannot, speedily
    evaluate proposed projects and rapidly change focus as research
    discoveries offer new opportunities to America's scientific community.
    CDMRP is a terrific reflection of a well-proved maxim: ``Give the Army
    a problem, and you'll soon have a solution.'' The Army simply gets
    things done in a thorough and novel manner.
        The CDMRP structure is based on a model developed by an earlier IOM
    report. Its mission and its philosophy for awarding research grants
    reflect that of DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA). The DARPA model, performance through competition and
    innovation, was specifically praised in President Bush's fiscal year
    2005 budget. This DARPA-esque approach to cancer research allows PCRP
    to identify novel research with large potential payoffs and to focus on
    innovative methods that do not receive funding elsewhere. This is an
    essential element of the research enterprise, that needs to be
    expanded, not contracted.
        One of the strongest aspects of the program is PCRP's Integration
    Panel. The panel is composed of those who know prostate cancer research
    and the issues facing it: scientists, researchers, and prostate cancer
    survivors. This peer and consumer driven model allows the program to
    select grants based on merit and their translational benefit while
    incorporating the views of those who need research the most, prostate
    cancer patients. It funds research that encourages innovation rather
    than research that incrementally answers small scientific questions. No
    other publicly funded cancer research entity effectively brings
    together all those with a stake in curing prostate cancer.
        Perhaps the best example of public-private partnerships in prostate
    cancer research is the Prostate Cancer Research Funders Conference.
    That panel brings together representatives of all the government
    agencies that fund prostate cancer research along with their
    counterparts in the private sector. Participants include NIH/NCI, DOD,
    the Veterans Health Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, Canadian and British
    government agencies, private foundations/organizations and
    representatives from industry. Members of the Conference have come
    together to focus on shared objectives and address commonly recognized
    barriers in research.
        As a co-convener of the conference, PCRP plays an important role in
    shaping its priorities. Currently, Federal agencies participate
    voluntarily, but they can opt in or out based on the tenure of
    executive leadership. For the conference to be successful, Federal
    agencies engaged in prostate cancer research should, in my opinion, be
    required to participate, and we ask for your leadership to make that
    happen. We need to see more leveraging of existing resources and a
    broader engagement of Federal agencies can help accomplish this
    important objective. Moreover, Congress must also offer sufficient
    incentives for the private sector to participate. However, these
    incentives must not compromise the autonomy or integrity of PCRP's peer
    review structure. I firmly believe that a collaborative, multifaceted
    approach to prostate cancer research can bring about better results in
    a more timely fashion. No one Institution is equipment to fully
    translate discoveries into products; government, academia and industry
    must be brought together to solve these very difficult and complex
    problems that face our Nation and our families. Mr. Chairman, we have
    done remarkable work and are making progress. Public-private
    collaboration and new scientific discoveries are moving us toward a
    better understanding of how prostate cancer kills, but, for our work to
    be worthwhile, it must be translated into tangible goals and results
    for patients.
        I urge you to continue to support and enhance growth of PCRP, a
    program that is efficient, driven by scientific priorities and
    scientifically productive. The War on Prostate Cancer must be funded
    appropriately so researchers can get new drugs to patients who need
    them most. For this to happen, PCRP needs $100 million in fiscal year
    2006, and I respectfully request that you appropriate this need.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Captain Robert Hurd
    and Chief Petty Officer Michael Silver of the United States
    Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, U.S. NAVY
                (RETIRED)
    ACCOMPANIED BY CHIEF PETTY OFFICER MICHAEL SILVER, UNITED STATES NAVY
                SEA CADET CORPS

        Captian Hurd. Good afternoon, Senators.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Captain Hurd. It is my pleasure today to have Chief Petty
    Officer Michael Silver present our testimony. Just as a little
    bit of background, out of 10,000 young men and women in the
    Naval Sea Cadet Corps, about 50 a year attain the rank of chief
    petty officer. So it is quite a significant accomplishment. We
    have him for about 1 more month before he joins the Marine
    Corps upon graduation from high school.
        Senator Stevens. Good.
        Nice to have you.
        Mr. Silver. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
    Senator Inouye. I am a chief petty officer. I am with a
    battalion based in the naval base in Ventura County in
    California. I also go to El Camino Real High School in Woodland
    Hills.
        I am honored to represent over 10,000 Sea Cadets across the
    Nation, and also 2,000 adult volunteers in the program. We are
    a congressionally chartered youth development and education
    program whose main goals are to develop young men and women
    while promoting interest and skills in seamanship, aviation,
    construction, and other military fields. We instill a sense of
    patriotism, commitment, self-reliance, along with the Navy's
    core values, honor, courage, and commitment. We also take pride
    in molding strong moral character and self-discipline in a
    drug- and gang-free environment.
        Many young people join our program for our hands-on
    experience. We try to maximize our opportunities as much as
    possible all throughout the program with the armed services and
    also the civilian workforce. Our program over any other youth
    program, over Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), Sea
    Scouts, Boy Scouts, Devil Pups, we have the most in-depth
    program that is offered outside of school.
        We have the most hands-on experience. We were out there
    with the actual Navy, with the actual Marine Corps, the Air
    Force, different services. We go on the bases. There is no
    other program that is offered that goes in depth as we do. We
    go on Navy ships, on Coast Guard ships. I personally have
    been--I participated in basic airman's training where it is
    pretty much I am on a ground crew, on Navy aircraft. I have
    been to medical training. I worked at a naval hospital for 2
    weeks. I have worked in the emergency room (ER).
        I have been to a leadership academy. I learned pretty much
    how to be a successful leader to others and stuff like that. I
    have also been to field training, which is pretty much on the
    Marine Corps aspect of it; field ops aviation school in
    Maryland. I have also been to an international exchange with
    the Her/His Majesty's Ship (HMS) Bristol in England, where I
    was there with Swedish, Canadian, South Korean, Chinese, and
    Australian, because the Sea Cadets is also an international
    program and they were there with over 50 other people from
    different other countries.
        Also, there are 473 former Sea Cadets now attending the
    U.S. Naval Academy and approximately 400 former cadets annually
    enlist in the armed services. These prescreened, highly
    motivated and well prepared young people have shown that prior
    Sea Cadet experience is an excellent indicator of high career
    success rate, both in and out of the military. Whether or not
    we choose a military career, we also carry forth the forged
    values of good citizenship, leadership, and moral courage that
    we believe will benefit our country and us as well.
        The corps is particularly sensitive that no young person is
    denied access to the program because of economic status, as for
    the most part we are responsible for our own expenses, which
    can amount to an average of $500 without outside assistance per
    cadet per year. Federal funds have been used to help offset the
    cadets' out of pocket training costs. However, for a variety of
    reasons current funding can no longer adequately sustain the
    program and we respectfully ask you to consider and support
    funding that will allow for the full amount of $2 million
    requested for the next fiscal year.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and I and the
    entire Sea Cadet Corps appreciate your support for this fine
    program that has meant so much to myself over the past 7 years
    and which will continue to influence me for the rest of my
    life. I would just like to thank you, and I am open to
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Captain Robert C. Hurd

                                    REQUEST

        Navy had originally requested full funding at the $2,000,000 level
    in their fiscal year 2006 budget submission. This was in response to
    last year's Senate/House conference committee language urging them to
    include the NSCC in their fiscal year 2006 request. Navy initially
    budgeted these funds at the $2,000,000 level but subsequently deleted
    this funding to meet an imposed budget mark. Subsequent negations with
    Navy after the President's Budget had been submitted have resulted in a
    verbal promise to fund the NSCC in fiscal year 2006 at the fiscal year
    2005 appropriated level of $1,700,000--to be funded from existing
    budget lines. Because this action occurred after the budget submission,
    no separate line item exists for NSCC and because it was originally
    funded (Before the mark), no Unfunded Requirements List item was
    submitted.
        It is respectfully requested that $300,000 be appropriated for the
    NSCC in fiscal year 2006, so that when added to the promised $1,700,000
    will restore full funding at the $2,000,000 level. Further, in order to
    codify the Navy's promised commitment and to ensure future funding,
    consideration of including the following conference language is
    requested: ``Congress is pleased to learn that Navy has agreed to fund
    the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps in the fiscal year 2006 budget as urged
    by the Senate and House in the 2005 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 2006 budget
    request will fund the program at the full $2,000,000 requested.
    Conferees urge the Navy to continue to fund this program in the fiscal
    year 2007 budget request and out years.''

                                   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 368 Sea Cadet units with a program total
    of 10,980 participants (2,204 adult Officers and Instructors and 8,776
    Cadets (about 33 percent female).

                                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, over 178 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, Coast Guard, Marine and other service
    member 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, naval history, naval customs and traditions, and
    nautical skills. Training may be held onboard ships, small boats or
    aircraft, depending upon platform availability, as well as onboard
    military bases and stations. 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 Naval Sea Cadet
    program. It also prepares them for their first major away from home
    training event, the 2 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 orientated 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 course
    that Navy enlistees receive. The curriculum is provided by the Navy,
    and taught at all training sites. In 2004 there were 19 Recruit
    training classes at 18 locations, including 1 class conducted over the
    winter holiday school break. These 18 nationwide regional sites are
    required to accommodate the increased demand for quotas and also to
    keep cadet and adult travel costs to a minimum. Over 2500 Naval Sea
    Cadets attended recruit training in 2004, supported by another 230
    adult volunteers.
        Once Sea Cadets have successfully completed recruit training, they
    may choose from a wide variety of advanced training opportunities
    including basic/advanced airman, ceremonial guard, seamanship, sailing,
    amphibious operations, leadership, firefighting and emergency services,
    submarine orientation, seal and mine warfare operations, Navy diving,
    and training in occupational specialties including health care, legal,
    music, master-at-arms and police science, and construction.
        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps is proud of the quality and diversity of
    training opportunities offered to its Cadet Corps. For 2004
    approximately 8,000 training opportunities were formally advertised for
    both cadets and adults. Another 600 opportunities presented themselves
    through the dedication, resourcefulness and initiative of the adult
    volunteer officers who independently arranged training for cadets
    onboard local bases and stations. This locally arranged training
    represents some of the best that the NSCC has to offer and includes the
    consistently outstanding training offered by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
    total cadet and adult opportunity for 2004 stood at about 8,500 quotas,
    including all recruit training. Approximately 7,800 NSCC members, with
    about 7,050 being cadets, stepped forward and requested orders to take
    advantage of these training opportunities. Cadets faced a myriad of
    challenging and rewarding training experiences designed to instill
    leadership and develop self-reliance. It also enabled 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 2004. The NSCC continues to experience 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 the
    Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) following the events of 9/11 has
    continued to preclude berthing availability at many bases and stations,
    the NSCC maintained its strength and opportunity for cadets as other
    military hosts offered resources in support of the NSCC. 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 entire year.
    Approximately 400-500 cadets per year further confirm the program's
    popularity by performing multiple 2-week trainings, taking maximum
    advantage of the opportunities presented. The NSCC also remains proud
    that approximately 9 percent of the midshipman brigade at the U.S.
    Naval Academy report having been prior Naval Sea Cadets, most citing
    summer training as a key factor in their decision to attend the USNA.
    Training Highlights for 2004
        The 2004 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 classes in sailing and legal (JAG)
    training, expanded SEAL orientation opportunity, SCUBA classes, more
    seamanship training onboard the NSCC training vessels on the Great
    Lakes, and additional honor guard training opportunities. Other
    highlights included:
      --Maintained national recruit training opportunity for every cadet
            wanting to participate with 19 evolutions in 2004.
      --In spite of escalating costs and increased competition for base
            resources, kept cadet summer training cost at only $40 per
            week, an increase of only $10 per week per cadet for all
            training.
      --Continued NSCC's expanded use of Army and State National Guard
            facilities to accommodate demand for quotas for recruit
            training.
      --Completed total rewrites and updates of the NSCC Officer
            Professional Development Courses for all adults and implemented
            programs for reducing adult volunteer out of pocket
            participation expenses, dramatically improving the quality and
            extent of training for adult volunteers.
      --Expanded NSCC cadet training with Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal/
            Mobile Diving Salvage Units to include West Coast opportunities
            in addition to the training in Norfolk, Virginia.
      --Expanded SEAL training opportunities beyond NSCC's traditional two
            annual classes to include an additional class with the Navy's
            Special Warfare Combat Craft (SWCC) units in Norfolk.
      --Developed and instituted the first ever Air Traffic Control
            training class at NAS, Kingsville, TX.
      --Maintained double the number of MAA classes and cadets taking this
            training since 9/11.
      --Implemented first ever opportunity for culinary arts training for
            cadets onboard the USS Kiluea T-AE-26 at Alameda, CA in support
            of traditional seamanship training annually conducted onboard
            that MSC ship.
      --Re-instituted at Naval Hospital Great Lakes NSCC's unique class for
            advanced medical ``First Responder'' training.
      --Expanded opportunities for music training beyond traditional
            training with the Navy's School of Music in Norfolk, VA to
            include training with the Atlantic Fleet Band in Jacksonville,
            FL.
      --Expanded and conducted NSCC's first advanced seamanship class for
            outstanding cadets at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy at
            Buzzards Bay, MA.
      --For all adults volunteering to be escorts for summer training,
            implemented the first ever and only program for reducing
            volunteer out of pocket expenses. An extremely modest program
            designed to offset travel cost only (15 cents a mile with a
            mileage cap) it has promoted improved program commitment among
            NSCC's adult volunteers and alleviated critical shortages of
            adult escorts for summer training.
      --Maintained expanded YP training on the Great Lakes, with 5 underway
            cruises in 2004.
      --Continued to place cadets onboard USCG Barque Eagle for multiple 3-
            week underway orientation cruises.
      --Continued to place cadets aboard USCG stations, cutters, and
            tenders for what each year proves to be among the best of the
            training opportunities offered in the NSCC.
      --Again conducted the popular, merit based, International Exchange
            Program for 2004, expanded to include the Asian opportunities
            in Hong Kong and Korea that were suspended in 2003 due to the
            SARS concern. Included Australia in the program for 2004.
      --Maintained attendance at NSCC Petty Officer Leadership Academies,
            (POLA) at approximately 280 cadets.
      --Placed cadets onboard USN ships under local orders as operating
            schedules and opportunity permitted, to include for 12 cadets a
            60+ day transit and homeport relocation of the USS Ronald
            Reagan from Norfolk to San Diego via the Straits of Magellan.
      --And as in all prior years, again enjoyed particularly outstanding
            support from members of the United States Navy Reserve, whose
            help and leadership remain essential for summer training.

                      INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM (IEP)

        For 2004 the NSCC continued again for the third 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 Norfolk and at Fort
    Lewis, WA for 2 weeks of U.S. Navy style training.

                           NAVY LEAGUE CADET TRAINING

        In 2004, approximately 1,400 Navy League cadets and escorts
    attended Navy League Orientation Training at 17 sites nationwide.
    Participation in 2004 was very much like 2003. The diversity in
    location and ample quotas allowed for attendance by each and every
    League cadet who wished to attend. Approximately 270 League cadets and
    their escorts attended Advanced Navy League training where cadets learn
    about small boats and small boat safety using the U.S. Coast Guard's
    safe boating curriculum. Other advanced Navy League training sites
    emphasize leadership training. Both serve the program well in preparing
    League cadets for further training in the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, and
    particularly for their first ``boot camp.'' The continuing strong
    numbers of participants for both Orientation and Advanced training,
    support not just the popularity of the NSCC program but also the
    positive impact the Federal training grant has had in helping cadets
    afford the training and helping them take advantage of the increased
    opportunities available to them.

                               SERVICE ACCESSIONS

        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps was formed at the request of the
    Department of the Navy as a means to ``enhance the Navy image in the
    minds of American youth.'' To accomplish this, ongoing presentations
    illustrate to Naval Sea Cadets the advantages and benefits of careers
    in the armed services, and in particular, the sea services.
        While there is no service obligation associated with the Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps program, many Sea Cadets choose to enlist or enroll in
    Officer training programs in all the Services.
        Annually, the NSCC conducts a survey to determine the approximate
    number of Cadets making this career decision. This survey is conducted
    during the annual inspections of the units. The reported Cadet
    accessions to the services are only those that are known to the unit at
    that time. There are many accessions that occur in the 2-3 year
    timeframe after Cadets leave their units, which go unreported. For
    example, for the year 2000, with about 83 percent of the units
    reporting, the survey indicates that 510 known Cadets entered the armed
    forces during the reporting year ending December 31, 2000. Of these, 30
    ex-Sea Cadets were reported to have received appointments to the U.S.
    Naval Academy. Further liaison with the USNA indicates that in fact,
    there are currently 472 Midshipmen with Sea Cadet backgrounds--almost 9
    percent of the entire Brigade. Navy accession recruiting costs have
    averaged over $14,000 per person, officer or enlisted, which applied to
    the number of Sea Cadet accessions represents a significant financial
    benefit to the Navy. Equally important is the expectation that once a
    more accurate measurement methodology can be found, is, that since Sea
    Cadets enter the Armed Forces as disciplined, well trained and
    motivated individuals, their retention, graduation and first term
    enlistment completion rates are perhaps the highest among any other
    entry group. USNA officials are currently studying graduation rates for
    past years for ex-Sea Cadets as a group as compared to the entire
    Brigade. Their preliminary opinion is that these percents will be among
    the highest. It is further expected that this factor will be an
    excellent indicator of the following, not only for the USNA, but for
    all officer and enlisted programs the Sea Cadets may enter:
      --Extremely high motivation of ex-Cadets to enter the Service.
      --Excellent background provided by the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet
            experience in preparing and motivating Cadets to enter the
            Service.
      --Prior U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps experience is an excellent pre-
            screening opportunity for young men and women to evaluate their
            interest in pursuing a military career. This factor could
            potentially save considerable tax-payer dollars expended on
            individuals who apply for, then resign after entering the
            Academy if they decide at some point they do not have the
            interest or motivation.
      --U.S. Naval Sea Cadet experience prior to entering the Service is an
            excellent indicator of a potentially high success rate.
        Data similar to the above has been requested from the United States
    Coast Guard Academy and the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
        Whether or not they choose a service career, all Sea Cadets carry
    forth learned values of good citizenship, leadership and moral courage
    that will benefit themselves and our country.

                                PROGRAM FINANCES

        Sea Cadets pay for all expenses, including travel to/from training,
    uniforms, insurance and training costs. Out-of-pocket costs can reach
    $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 years 2001,
    2002, and 2003, $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2004 and $1,700,000 for
    fiscal year 2005 (of the $2,000,000 requested), all of these funds 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 (and growing).
      --General inflation.
      --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 ``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 provided for fiscal year 2006.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        It is a very successful program and we know that costs have
    gone up. But we will do our best to stretch that money,
    General, and see to it that you have the ability to produce
    young men like this for us every year.
        Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement of your
    past experience.
        Senator Inouye. How many naval sea cadets are there in the
    United States at this moment?
        Captain Hurd. It is about 10,000. The mix of males, females
    is the same as it is in the Navy for the most part, about a
    three to one mix. We have units in every State except Wyoming.
        Senator Stevens. They are seeking $300,000 more this year.
    It is a modest request, General. We will do our best to achieve
    it. Do you have anything else, Senator?
        Senator Inouye. I am impressed at the number, 472 cadets
    have received appointments to the Naval Academy.
        Captain Hurd. That are currently at the Naval Academy now,
    yes, sir. The admissions folks love them because these young
    men and women for the most part know what they are getting into
    and our graduation rates at the Academy and through boot camp
    far exceed the general Navy completion rates as well. We are
    quite proud of that.
        Mr. Silver. And the training, the background, what you
    learn through the program, the experiences--when we do the
    hands-on training, because you are training with the actual
    military that do the jobs that you want to do, you do the same
    courses that the Navy does or the Marines, and they go through
    it with you. The training that you learn through this program,
    there is no other program that you can get that will even come
    close to what you learn in this program.
        That is why the military allows us when we enlist to go in
    as advanced pay grades, through the knowledge that we learned
    and the reputation of what we learned in the program.
        Senator Inouye. Your testimony is most reassuring at a time
    when our services are all experiencing problems in recruiting
    and retaining. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Are you in all 50 States?
        Captain Hurd. All except Wyoming. We have units in Guam and
    Iceland as well.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        Captain Hurd. We appreciate your support.
        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is the President of the
    National Association of Uniformed Services, Retired Major
    General William Matz, formerly Deputy Commander, U.S. Army in
    the Pacific. Nice to see you, sir.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM MATZ, JR., U.S. ARMY
                (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
        General Matz. Yes, sir, nice to see you again.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, on behalf of the over
    200,000 members and supporters of the National Association for
    Uniformed Services (NAUS), I want to thank you for this
    opportunity to present our views on defense funding. We also
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of your
    subcommittee for your leadership and your continued efforts to
    support and care for the men and women of the armed forces and
    for our military retirees and their survivors.
        The primary purpose of our association is to support a
    strong national defense and this support includes being an
    advocate for the earned benefits of our Nation's warriors, both
    Active and retired. We understand clearly that during a time of
    severe budget deficits and with the country at war dollars for
    all Government programs are tight. But we believe that funds
    for the care and support of those who serve and have served
    must always be one of the Nation's highest priorities.
        As you are aware, some Government officials have stated
    recently that providing the earned benefits for those who have
    served is hurtful. In reality, from my perspective, taking care
    of military personnel, their families and retirees is helpful
    to the Nation's cause and it will also enhance the recruiting
    efforts of our armed forces. Retired military and veterans can
    be among the very, very best recruiters if they can report that
    the promises were kept after their service was over.
        We at NAUS join the other military and veterans services
    organizations in asking for the necessary funding for the
    proposed enhancements for those currently serving on active
    duty. These include, just very quickly: The Crosby-Puller
    Combat Wounds Compensation Act that requires that a member of
    the uniformed services who was wounded in a combat zone
    continue to be paid the monthly pay and allowances and receive
    the combat zone tax exclusion during his recovery period.
        We also ask for your support for the Supply Our Soldiers
    Act, which would provide postal benefits for those serving in
    combat zones. Should these initiatives be enacted individually
    or as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, we simply
    ask that the funds be made available for these needed
    enhancements.
        Now, while these issues, sir, are important, my main thrust
    today is to emphasize the need for full funding of the defense
    health program. Arriving at the point where we are now with the
    TRICARE program has been a long and very arduous battle and a
    fight that members of this subcommittee, joining with the
    National Military Veterans Alliance and the Military Coalition,
    made happen, and for this we thank you.
        As you know, the defense health program is a critical piece
    in ensuring the maintenance of a strong military. From my
    perspective, each dollar is an investment in military
    readiness. During my service in Vietnam as an infantryman, one
    of the greatest fears of soldiers arriving in that country was
    being wounded and not getting adequately timely medical care.
    Because of this, we would assure them that every wounded
    soldier would be recovered, every wounded soldier would be
    treated and evacuated as a first priority, and that they would
    get the very best medical care in the world.
        Our military medical system is the best in the world. To
    stay the best, it must be fully funded. So unless we have a
    strong, vital military medical program here in the continental
    United States (CONUS) we will not be able to continue to deploy
    the highly trained medical units and personnel supporting our
    combat forces in the overseas theaters. This includes funding
    the network of stateside military hospitals and clinics and of
    course the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences, which I know you are both familiar with.
        In my view this is at the core of medical professionalism
    for our Nation's uniformed services. It also includes the
    funding necessary to ensure adequate care for our military
    families and retirees.
        Mr. Chairman, your longstanding leadership and your support
    for military medicine has been clearly stated over the years.
    In fact, from my view it has been critical to its success,
    indeed to its very survival. I am reminded of a like sentiment
    expressed just recently by the chairman of the Senate Armed
    Services Committee, who was opposing a proposal to shift money
    from military health care to buy weapons rather than seeking
    the funds for both. We absolutely agree on this point and also
    that funding for both must be a national priority. Accordingly,
    sir, we ask that you continue to support full funding for our
    very vital defense health program.
        Again, thank you for your support and thank you for these
    few minutes to come before you today.
        Senator Stevens. Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Well, as you have indicated, the best
    recruiting weapon that we have is a veteran who has served and
    can tell the new American that the military is the best place
    to serve.
        General Matz. Absolutely, sir, yes.
        Senator Inouye. He is the evidence, the proof.
        General Matz. Yes, that is the evidence, absolutely.
        Senator Inouye. We will do our best, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I was amazed to find when we were in Iraq
    and Afghanistan the number of young people we talked to that
    talked to us about their fathers and their experience. There is
    no replacing that generation to generation conveyance of the
    duty to serve.
        General Matz. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
        General Matz. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of William M. Matz, Jr.

    Introduction
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
    became the President of the National Association for Uniformed Services
    (NAUS) on January 15 of this year. As the representative of our 190,000
    members/supporters, I extend our gratitude for the invitation to
    testify before you about our views and suggestions concerning the
    following defense funding issues:
        First, I would like to explain to you our association and why we
    feel so very qualified to discuss our members' legislative concerns.
    The National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) prides itself in
    that it is the ``The Servicemember's Voice in Government--Focusing on
    People.'' NAUS is unique. Founded in 1968, it's the only military
    affiliated association whose membership represents the entire military/
    veteran family. No other association provides such a broad
    representation when dealing with Congress, the White House, and the
    Pentagon. NAUS represents all seven branches of the uniformed services:
    Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, United States Public
    Health Service (USPHS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), including all components: Active Duty, Retired,
    Reserve, National Guard, and other veterans, their spouses, widows/
    widowers, other family members and survivors; and all grades and
    ranks--enlisted/officer.
        The primary purpose of our association is to support a strong
    national defense and to promote and protect the interests and promised
    benefits earned by members of the uniformed services for themselves,
    their families and survivors and those of all American citizens with
    common interests.
        Accordingly, we support issues that directly affect those currently
    serving on Active duty--Regular, National Guard and Reserve. Our
    testimony will ask this committee's funding for the following pieces of
    legislation upon passage:
    Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act
        We support this Act which would ensure that a member of the
    uniformed services who is wounded or otherwise injured while serving in
    a combat zone continues to be paid monthly military pay and allowances,
    while recovering from the wound or injury at the same level received
    while in the combat zone. This act will also ensure that the
    servicemember continues to receive the combat zone tax exclusion during
    recovery.
        Position.--We urge that S. 461, the Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds
    Compensation Act be funded in the Defense appropriation.
    Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) & Educational Benefits
        The strain on the Reserve Component (Reserve and National Guard
    units) caused by frequent and long call-ups to Active Duty has had a
    negative affect on recruiting and retention efforts. Added enticements
    are needed to help bolster these forces, which our National defense has
    come to rely so heavily on in contingency operations.
        We believe that extending the same MGIB and educational benefits to
    the Reserve and Guard forces would help in their recruiting/retention
    programs.
        Position.--We urge the Defense subcommittee to provide the funding
    of enhanced MGIB and Educational Benefits for the Reserve and National
    Guard units.
    Guard and Reserve Enhanced Benefits Act
        Since the National Guard and Reserve make up a great portion of the
    troops in the areas of current operations, we believe other measures
    are needed to alleviate many of the hardships caused by these frequent
    and prolonged deployments. Many are contained in the Guard and Reserve
    Enhanced Benefits Act, such as Child Care, Non-reduction in pay for
    Federal Employees, Tax Credit for Employers, Reduced minimum age for
    eligibility for non-regular Service retired pay, and Expanded
    eligibility of Ready Reserve Members under the Tricare Program.
        Position.--We urge the Defense subcommittee to provide funding for
    S. 38, the Guard and Reserve Enhanced Benefits Act.
    Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2005
        NAUS supports the ``Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2005,'' H.R. 887, a
    bill to provide for a program under which postal benefits shall be made
    available for purposes of certain personal correspondence and other
    mail matter sent from within the United States to members of the Armed
    Forces serving on active duty abroad who are engaged in military
    operations, and for other purposes.
        Position.--We urge the Senate to sponsor a companion bill and the
    Defense subcommittee to provide the funding to assist families of
    active duty and activated Reserve and National Guard servicemembers
    with postal costs for packages and mail to troops in current
    operations.
        We contend that honoring the promises made to those veterans who
    made a career of the military will help the military services in their
    recruiting and retention efforts. Accordingly, we strongly urge the
    Defense subcommittee's support of the following:
    Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for Chapter 61 Retirees
        Many combat injured military veterans were forced by the severity
    of their injuries to be medically retired under Chapter 61 regulations.
    Quite a few of them would have completed 20 years of service towards a
    full military retirement, but could not. These individuals are not
    qualified for Combat Related Special Compensation because they served
    less than 20 years. They deserve the same consideration for the award
    of CRSC as a 20-year retiree and their level of award should be based
    on their years of active service.
        Position.--The House has introduced legislation to resolve this
    issue (H.R. 1366). NAUS urges the Senate to introduce companion
    legislation, and urges the Defense subcommittee to provide the funding
    to resolve this issue.
    Survivor Benefits Program/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Offset
        Currently, if the retired military sponsor, who enrolled in the
    Survivor Benefits Program (SBP), dies of a service-connected
    disability, the surviving spouse is eligible for both the SBP annuity
    and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of
    Veterans Affairs. However, the SBP annuity is offset by the full amount
    of the DIC annuity. Each program's purpose is different, SBP's goal is
    to provide for the loss of the sponsor's earned retired pay, and DIC's
    goal is to provide the surviving spouse compensation for the loss of
    their spouse due to injuries caused by his/her service to the country.
        Position.--The National Association for Uniformed Services strongly
    urges funding for S. 185 which would end the SBP offset with DIC.
    30 Year Paid-Up Status
        A secondary goal is the acceleration of the paid-up SBP provisions
    by changing the effective date from October 1, 2008, to October 1,
    2005, already 2 years beyond the 30th anniversary of the program.
    Enrollees who have reached the age of 70 and have paid their SBP
    premiums for more that 30 years (360 payments) are already being
    penalized.
        Position.--We ask that the Defense subcommittee provide funding to
    allow those early enrollees to be paid up as described in S. 185.
    Permanent ID Card for Dependents Age 65 and Over
        One of the issues stressed by NAUS is the need for permanent ID
    cards for dependents age 65 and over. Last year's NDAA authorized the
    issuance of permanent ID card for dependents age 75 and over. We still
    believe the age should be 65 and over. With the start of TRICARE for
    Life, expiration of TFL-eligible spouses' and survivors' military
    identification cards, and the threatened denial of health care claims,
    causes some of our older members and their caregivers' significant
    administrative and financial distress.
        Position.--NAUS urges that the Defense subcommittee continue the
    progress made last year by directing the Secretary of Defense to
    authorize issuance of permanent military identification cards to
    uniformed services family members and survivors who are age 65 and
    older, with appropriate guidelines for notification and surrender of
    the ID card in those cases where eligibility is ended by divorce or
    remarriage.
        Finally, NAUS urges the Defense subcommittee's consideration of the
    following issues related to the benefit of military service:
    Military Exchanges and Commissaries
        Issue One.--NAUS believes that DOD wants to reduce/eliminate the
    subsidy for the commissary system that provides food and other
    essentials to troops and families around the world, which will result
    in the military community losing the benefit.
        Position.--The National Association for Unformed Services strongly
    urges the committee to continue to provide the funding for the
    commissary subsidy to sustain the current services. Commissaries are a
    key component of the military pay and compensation package. Any action
    that would reduce/eliminate this benefit would result in a diminished
    quality of life and more out of pocket costs.
        Issue Two.--Recent DOD initiatives towards exchange consolidation
    and more recently shared services are an issue of interest for our
    members. The Unified Exchange Task Force has been developing several
    shared services models designed to reduce overhead costs in the areas
    of logistics, finance and accounting, information technology, human
    resources and non-resale procurement. This approach is based on
    reducing ``backroom'' costs for the exchanges so that they will have
    greater margins from which to offer their customers better pricing.
    However, NAUS continues to view the proposals with cautious interest
    until additional information becomes available. For example,
    implementation costs and transition costs are important components in
    the shared services decision and that information is not yet available.
        While the Unified Exchange Task Force (UETF) has been extremely
    open and informative throughout this process (associations have met
    quarterly with the UETF leadership since its inception), NAUS will
    reserve its support of shared services until a substantive, business-
    based analysis is completed that clearly demonstrates the change will
    enhance the benefit to the patron and increase the MWR dividend.
        Position.--NAUS asks the Defense subcommittee to provide the
    funding necessary to ensure that the exchanges, whether or not they
    share services, continue to provide appropriate product choices,
    competitive prices, and increased funding for MWR programs.
    Current and Future Issues Facing Uniformed Services Health Care
        The National Association for Uniformed Services would like to thank
    the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for its
    leadership in the past for providing the landmark legislation extending
    the Pharmacy benefit and TRICARE system to Medicare eligible military
    retirees, their families and survivors, making the lifetime benefit
    permanent, establishing the DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care
    Fund, reducing the catastrophic cap and making other TRICARE
    improvements. However, we must again urge that the Senate provide full
    funding of the Defense Health Program.
        Position.--DOD has projected an $11 billion shortfall in funding
    between fiscal year 2006-2011. NAUS strongly urges the Defense
    subcommittee to ensure that full funding is provided for this most
    crucial of programs.
    Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)
        The National Association for Uniformed Services has been a long
    time proponent of legislation that would provide military personnel the
    option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit
    Program. Though confident that the TRICARE program and the TRICARE for
    Life program will be successful, because they are an outstanding value
    for most beneficiaries, in a few cases, the TRICARE/TRICARE for Life
    options may not be the best choice, or may not be available for the
    eligible beneficiary. For that reason, we believe the FEHBP option
    should be enacted. Providing the FEHBP, as an option would help
    stabilize the TRICARE program, provide a market based benchmark for
    cost comparison and be available to those for whom TRICARE/TRICARE for
    Life is not an adequate solution.
        Position.--NAUS strongly urges the Defense subcommittee to provide
    additional funding to support a full FEHBP program for military
    personnel as an option.
    Include Physician and Nurse Specialty Pay in Retirement Computations
        Results of a recent Active Duty Survey show that pay and benefits
    are the most important factors impacting retention. Improving specialty
    pay/bonuses and including specialty pay/bonuses in retired pay
    calculations would aid retention. Therefore, prompt action to retain
    these and other highly skilled medical professionals is needed.
        Position.--The National Association for Uniformed Services requests
    funding to allow the military physicians and nurses to use their
    specialty pay in their retirement computations. The military services
    continue to lose top quality medical professionals (doctors and nurses)
    at mid-career. A major reason is the difference between compensation
    levels for military physicians and nurses and those in the private
    sector.
    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Defense subcommittee,
    we want to thank you for your leadership and for holding these hearings
    this year. You have made it clear that the military continues to be a
    high priority and you have our continuing support.

        Senator Stevens. Our last witness is Retired Master Chief
    Joseph Barnes, the U.S. Naval Executive Secretary of the Fleet
    Reserve Association. Yes, sir.

    STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOSEPH L. BARNES, U.S. NAVY
                (RETIRED), NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
                FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Chief Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. The
    Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates the opportunity to
    present its views on the 2006 defense budget.
        Before I address several priority issues, I wanted to thank
    this distinguished subcommittee for its leadership, support,
    and strong commitment to important quality of life programs
    benefiting service members, reservists, military retirees, and
    their families.
        FRA's number one priority is supporting adequate funding
    for protected devices and equipment and military personnel
    serving in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. This
    includes body armor, outer protective vests, and armor for
    combat vehicles. The next priority is ensuring that wounded
    troops, their families and survivors of those killed in action
    are those cared for by a grateful nation. FRA fully endorses
    continuing combat pay and other special pays until the
    completion of hospital care or discharge from their respective
    service and permanent increases to the death gratuity and
    service members group life insurance.
        Another top concern of FRA is to work with Congress and DOD
    to ensure continued full funding of the defense health budget
    and ensure access to health care for all uniformed services
    beneficiaries. The new TRICARE Reserve Select health plan is
    important to our Guard and Reserve personnel and their families
    and a fully funded health care benefit is critical to readiness
    and the retention of qualified uniformed services personnel.
        FRA supports appropriations necessary to implement the 3.1
    percent across the board military pay increase on January 1,
    2006. The association also strongly supports continued progress
    toward closing the military pay gap. Unfortunately, targeted
    pay increases for senior enlisted personnel and certain officer
    grades were not included in the administration's budget. At a
    minimum, FRA supports funding pay increases at least comparable
    to the annual employment cost index.
        Adequate service end strengths are important to maintaining
    readiness. If force size is inadequate and operational tempo
    (OPTEMPO) too intense, the performance of individual service
    members is negatively affected. FRA believes there are
    inadequate numbers of uniformed personnel to sustain the war
    effort and other operational commitments. This situation also
    creates considerable stress on the families of service
    personnel.
        FRA appreciates the major reform of the military survivor
    benefit plan authorized in this year's defense authorization
    act and soon thousands of survivors will no longer have to
    endure a reduction in their survivor benefits plan (SBP)
    annuities upon reaching age 62.
        Another SBP reform issue is also important to FRA's
    membership, that being the acceleration of SBP paid-up date
    from 2008 to 2005 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.
        FRA supports funding to maintain the commissary benefit at
    the current level, increased reserve Montgomery GI bill (MGIB)
    education benefits, which are currently funded well below the
    authorized level, funding for family awareness and spouse
    employment opportunities, which are integral to our well-being
    retention--their well-being and retention, excuse me--and
    supplemental impact aid funding for school districts with large
    numbers of military-sponsored students.
        If authorized, FRA also strongly supports full concurrent
    receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation,
    retention of the full final month's retired pay by retirees'
    surviving spouse, and the extension of the dislocation
    allowance to retiring service members.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
    present the association's recommendations and I stand ready to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Barnes

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is 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 in the 108th Congress. Thanks so much for the
    effort. FRA knows you have contributed in the previous year 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 will be 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.
        FRA is concerned that in spite of signs of bravado, 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 protective devises available for their personal safety. Advocating
    the funding for and receipt of these protective devices; i.e.--
    interceptor body armor, outer protective vests, and small arms
    protective inserts; to every uniformed member sent into harm's way is
    FRA's No. 1 priority.
        The Association's next priority is to see that our wounded troops,
    their families, and the surviving families of the men and women killed
    in action are cared for by a grateful Nation. In this respect, FRA
    fully endorses funding any proposal that authorizes our wounded
    veterans continuance of their combat pay and other special pays
    received while in combat until the completion of their hospital care or
    discharge from their respective military service. And any authorized
    increases to the death gratuity and life insurance proposed by the
    Congress.

                                  OTHER GOALS

        Health Care.--FRA and its membership are most grateful for the
    improvements in accessing proper health care for the military community
    and the expansion of the program to provide greater care for military
    retirees and their families. Not everyone in the military community is
    pleased, but Congress has done much with the resources available to
    offer the best program for as many beneficiaries as possible. There are
    other proposals on the table that would increase benefits for those not
    satisfied with the current program. FRA endorses these proposals for
    many of its members would be affected by their adoption. However, the
    Association's primary concern is that existing programs be adequately
    funded for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
        Active Duty/Reserve Programs.--Topping the list among the active
    duty and reserve members of the Sea Services (Navy and Marines) are
    adequate pay and allowances, child care and housing.
        Pay and Allowances.--For the fiscal year 2006, the administration
    has recommended a 3.1 percent across the board basic pay increase for
    members of the Armed Forces. This is commensurate with the 1999 formula
    to provide increases of 0.5 percentage points greater than that of the
    previous year for the private sector. With the addition of targeted
    raises, the formula has reduced the pay gap with the private sector
    from 13.5 percent to 5.2 percent following the January 1, 2005, pay
    increase.
        FRA, however, is disappointed that there is no targeted pay
    increase recommended, particularly for mid-grade and more senior
    enlisted personnel. FRA, The Military Coalition, the 9th Quadrennial
    Review of Military Compensation (9thQRMC), and the Department of
    Defense have advocated the necessity for targeted pays. In spite of the
    number of special pay increases in the last few years, the pay of our
    noncommissioned and petty officers remains compressed; a situation that
    has existed since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
        FRA urges the subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funds for
    the 3.1 percent pay increase for fiscal year 2006.
        Other Pays and Allowances.--FRA supports funding to continue and
    enhance enlistment and reenlistment bonuses and other compensatory
    items necessary for the military services to function accordingly and
    to provide the necessary incentives for the Nation's young men and
    women to serve in the Armed Forces. Recruiting and retention are vital
    to the success of the All-Volunteer Force and fulfilling the Nation's
    commitments and should be funded adequately to meet the services needs.
        Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--FRA is seeking revised housing
    standards. Many enlisted personnel, for example, are unaware of the
    standards for their respective pay grade and assume that the applicable
    BAH level is determined by a higher standard than they may be
    authorized. This causes confusion over the mismatch between the amount
    of BAH they receive and the actual cost of their type of housing. As an
    example, enlisted members are not authorized to receive BAH for a 3-
    bedroom single-family detached house until achieving the rank of E-9--
    which represents only 1 percent of the enlisted force--yet many
    personnel in more junior pay grades do in fact reside in detached
    homes. The Coalition believes that as a minimum, this BAH standard
    (single family detached house) should be extended gradually to
    qualifying service members beginning in grade E-8 and subsequently to
    grade E-7 and below over several years as resources allow.
        Through your leadership and support, the plan to reduce median out-
    of-pocket expenses has been implemented. The aggressive action to
    better realign BAH rates with actual housing costs has had a real
    impact and provides immediate relief for many service members and
    families struggling to meet rising housing and utility costs.
    Unfortunately, housing and utility costs continue to rise and the pay
    comparability gap, while diminished over recent years, continues to
    exist. Members residing off base face higher housing expenses along
    with significant transportation costs, and relief is especially
    important to junior enlisted personnel living in the civilian
    environment who do not qualify for other supplemental assistance.
        FRA urges the subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funds to
    cover authorized increases in housing allowances for uniformed
    personnel.
        Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Reimbursements.--FRA is most
    appreciative of the significant increases in the Temporary Lodging
    Expense (TLE) allowance authorized for fiscal year 2002 and the
    authority to raise PCS per diem expenses to match those for Federal
    civilian employees in fiscal year 2003. FRA greatly appreciates the
    provision in the fiscal year 2004 defense bill to provide full
    replacement value for household goods lost or damaged by private
    carriers during government directed moves, and looks forward to the
    timely implementation of the Department of Defense comprehensive
    ``Families First'' plan to improve claims procedures for service
    members and their families.
        These were significant steps to upgrade allowances that had been
    unchanged over many years. Even with these changes, however, service
    members continue to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in complying
    with government-directed relocation orders.
        For example, PCS mileage rates have not been adjusted since 1985.
    The current rates range from 15 to 20 cents per mile--less than half
    the 2005 temporary duty mileage rate of 40.5 cents per mile for
    military members and Federal civilians. PCS household goods weight
    allowances were increased for grades E-1 through E-4, effective January
    2003, but weight allowance increases are also needed for service
    members in grade E-5 and above to more accurately reflect the normal
    accumulation of household goods over the course of a career. The
    Association has recommended modifying weight allowance tables for
    personnel in pay grades E-7, E-8 and E-9 to coincide with allowances
    for officers in grades 0-4, 0-5, and 0-6, respectively. FRA also
    supports authorization of a 500-pound professional goods weight
    allowance for military spouses.
        In addition, 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. Authority is needed 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 is sensitive to the subcommittee's efforts to reduce the
    frequency of PCS moves. But the Armed Services cannot avoid requiring
    members to make regular relocations, with all the attendant disruptions
    in their children's education and their spouse's career progression.
    The Association believes strongly that the Nation that requires them to
    incur these disruptions should not be requiring them to bear the
    resulting high expenses out of their own pockets.
        FRA urges additional funding to support further upgrades of
    permanent change-of-station reimbursement allowances to recognize that
    the government, not the service member, should be responsible for
    paying the cost of government-directed relocations.
        Combat and Incentive Pays during Hospitalization.--FRA strongly
    urges the subcommittee to take action to ensure combat-wounded service
    members do not have their pay reduced or their taxes increased during
    periods of hospitalization. The Association believes that such
    compensation treatment is essential for service members who continue to
    suffer from the hazardous conditions that combat-related incentive pays
    and tax relief were created to recognize.
        Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS).--FRA is grateful for the
    increases in BAS over the years. There is more to be done; however, to
    permit single career-enlisted members greater individual responsibility
    in their personal living arrangements. FRA believes it is inconsistent
    to demand significant supervisory, leadership and management
    responsibilities of noncommissioned and petty officers, but still
    dictate to them where and when they must eat their meals while at their
    home duty station.
        FRA has urged the authorizers to repeal the statutory provision
    limiting BAS eligibility to 12 percent of single members residing in
    government quarters. As a long-term goal, extend full BAS eligibility
    to all single career enlisted members, beginning with the grade of E-6
    and, eventually, to the lower grades as budgetary constraints are
    eased. FRA requests the subcommittee's support for the repeal by
    appropriating the necessary funding to implement any increases in BAS
    adopted by the authorization process.
        MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill often is characterized as a form of
    compensation or as a ``recruiting tool.'' However, FRA would argue that
    it would be more appropriate to consider the benefit an investment in
    our nation's future. Military personnel can use the MGIB on active duty
    to aid in their professional development, giving them the tools to
    become better leaders, mentors and representatives of their respective
    service. Our Nation has a responsibility to ensure the MGIB investment
    remains a relevant supplement to completing one's education. We must
    give our veterans the tools to excel in an academic environment.
        There are 61,000 senior enlisted members in the Armed Forces who
    entered military service during the Veterans Education Assistance
    program (VEAP) era and did not have the opportunity to enroll in the
    MGIB. FRA has urged the adoption of an open enrollment period offering
    these enlisted leaders a chance to sign up for the education benefits
    available through the MGIB. In fact, the Association believes the MGIB
    should be expanded so that any uniformed member reenlisting in his or
    her military service will have the opportunity to enroll in the
    program.
        FRA recommends funding enhancements of benefits in the MGIB as
    authorized. The Association is grateful for the October 1, 2004
    increases in basic rates but they cover only about 60 percent of
    current tuition expenses. A creation of a benchmark for the MGIB will
    keep pace with the cost of an average 4-year college education. For the
    school year 2004-2005 ($20,082 for 4 yrs. at private institutions;
    $5,132 at public institutions) the cost is much greater than what is
    available through the MGIB. Enhancing the value of the MGIB would be an
    improved incentive to enlist or reenlist in the Armed Forces.

                          FAMILY READINESS AND SUPPORT

        It's most important that DOD and the military services concentrate
    on providing 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 varied benefits and services available to them.
        It's true that ``the service member 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 to the subcommittee.
        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 3,180 on and off
    base licensed child development homes. With the high priority tagged to
    child care, FRA urges Congress to continue enhancing and increase
    funding for this important benefit.
        Pre-tax Treatment for Child Care Expenses.--FRA seeks the support
    of the subcommittee to direct the Department of Defense to implement
    flexible spending accounts for pre-tax payment of child-care expenses.
    The Association urges the subcommittee to coordinate with the Ways and
    Means Committee to enact such authority as may be needed as soon as
    possible.
        Spousal Employment.--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. One of the major considerations
    for spousal employment is it could be a stepping-stone to retention of
    the service member--a key participant in the defense of this Nation.
    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.
        Impact Aid.--FRA is most appreciative for the Impact Aid authorized
    in previous Defense measures but must urge this subcommittee and its
    full committee to support a substantial increase in the funding for
    schools bearing the responsibility of educating the children of
    military personnel and Federal employees. Current funds are not
    adequate to ably support the education of federally sponsored children
    attending civilian community elementary schools. Beginning with the
    Nixon Administration, funding for Impact Aid has decreased
    dramatically. For example, in the current fiscal year the Military
    Impacted Schools Association (MISA) estimates Impact Aid is funded at
    only 60 percent of need according to law. Our children should not be
    denied the best in educational opportunities. Impact Aid provides the
    children of our Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, Soldiers, and
    Airmen, a quality education. FRA implores Congress to accept the
    responsibility of fully funding the military Impact Aid program. It is
    important to ensure our service members, many serving in harm's way,
    have little to concern with their children's future but more to do with
    the job at hand.
        DOD Schools.--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 and Federal employees' by forcing them to enroll in
    public schools. As long as the United States continues with an all-
    volunteer force and as long as U.S. uniformed personnel and employees
    of the Armed Forces are deployed to foreign shores, CONUS schools
    provide a safe haven for their children. FRA recommends that Congress
    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. There is no need for
    further threats of closures that damage the morale of our Nation's
    military personnel and families. In an all-voluntary force environment,
    it's certain Congress doesn't want to add to the retention challenges
    the military may face in the future.
        Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs (MWR).--FRA can't help but
    believe Congress and even the military services are less concerned with
    MWR programs that are really vital to supporting the service member and
    his or her family. The Navy's top enlisted chief, MCPON Terry Scott
    USN, again this year advised a House panel on February 16 last he is
    particularly troubled that current budget decisions will place a
    greater burden on the Service in providing the necessary programs so
    important in maintaining the well-being of its sailors and families.
    The MWR programs of the Navy; Child Care, Fleet/Family Support Program
    (FFSP), for example, include recreation, fitness, social and community
    support activities, spouse employment, personal financial management,
    counseling, family advocacy, safety, transition and relocation--all
    having a positive affect on Fleet Readiness.
        Currently, the shortage of funds is curtailing or closing some of
    the activities while the costs of participating in others have
    increased over the past year or two. One major problem is in Europe.
    The weakening dollar has caused an increase in child-care rates, movie
    tickets, etc., and placed a hiring freeze on MWR employees.
        The lack of fiscal support for MWR programs is damaging the need to
    provide mental and physical relief to both sailors and families from
    the stress of deployments that have increased dramatically since the
    military downsized in the 1990's. MWR programs build a community spirit
    among those living on or near a military installation, something not
    experienced by those who may seek comfort and well-being from a
    civilian environment.
        MWR facilities should be fully funded and include where and when
    available the guard, reserve, and retired military population residing
    in the area. One group aids the other. Who better to assist, comfort,
    counsel, and encourage military family members concerned with the
    conflict in Iraq, continuing deployments, and other military related
    activities.

                     FORCE SIZE/READINESS/OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO

        FRA will again simultaneously address force size, readiness,
    OPTEMPO, and PERSTEMPO as one issue. Readiness is achieved at its
    highest if force size is adequate in numbers, OPTEMPO is not too
    excessive, and PERSTEMPO is not adversely affecting the performance of
    individual service members. FRA noted in its fiscal year 2005 statement
    that all four were suffering from a shortage of uniformed members.
    Since then Congress has added numbers to the uniformed manpower in both
    the Army and Marine Corps. FRA is grateful for the increase and is
    hopeful the added manpower will be the answer to the difficulty
    experienced by the military in Iraq over the past few years. The
    Association, however, is concerned that the Navy is going to the
    extreme in downsizing its uniformed manpower. This concern has been
    voiced to the authorizing committee in hope some action will be
    directed to steady the outgoing tide of experienced naval personnel.
        Meanwhile, FRA urges the subcommittee to continue funding our
    military personnel to ensure the numbers remain sufficient to relieve
    both OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO, primarily the result of operations in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.

                               RESERVE COMPONENT

        Operational Tempo.--The increase in the use of reserve units to
    serve along side active duty components in Iraq, as an example, has
    caused considerable challenges for individual reservists. Not only has
    their mobilization placed a strain on employment and income, but the
    family as well. Employer support, once strong, decreases as more
    essential employees are whisked-off to spend longer periods in uniform
    leaving the employer frustrated with having to find a replacement and,
    at the same time, hold the position open for the reservist's return.
        FRA has always supported the Total Force Policy but is concerned
    that the sustained use of reserve forces will eventually harm the
    recruiting and retention of young men and women willing to serve as
    future citizen Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. The United States
    must maintain a strong reserve force at all times in the event of a
    greater need than at the present.
        The fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill established a
    Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. FRA is in hope that it
    will provide recommendations on what enhancements are necessary to
    recruit and retain the number of reservists required for the defense of
    the United States. There is a possibility the study may include
    recommendations addressing such issues as tax relief, healthcare,
    retirement upgrades, improvements in the MGIB-SR, and family support
    programs.
        Until the study is released, FRA urges this subcommittee to
    appropriate funds to support reserve and guard programs authorized in
    the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act that:
      --Increase in both enlisted and reenlistment bonuses.
      --Enhance the MGIB-SR rates for those who choose to participate in
            the program.
      --Provide academic and financial protection to members who are
            attending an institution of higher learning when called to
            active duty.
      --Support and fund programs for families, particularly those
            geographically dispersed and not readily accessible to military
            installations and inexperienced with the military.
      --Authorize cost-share access to Tricare for members of the Selected
            Reserve and their families.

                               RETIRED COMPONENT

        Concurrent Receipt.--The fiscal year 2003 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes a special compensation that
    establishes a beachhead to authorizing full concurrent receipt, a term
    for the payment of both military non-disability retired pay and any VA
    compensation for service-connected disabilities without a reduction in
    one or the other payment. The fiscal year 2004 and 2005 NDAA expanded
    the benefit list through Combat Related Disability Pay (CRDP) and
    Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Although FRA is
    appreciative of the effort of Congress to address the issue, it fails
    to meet the resolution adopted by the Association's membership to seek
    full compensation for both length-in-service military retirement and VA
    compensation. Currently, the receipt of VA compensation causes a like
    reduction to a retired service member's military retired pay. This
    leads to the belief, and well-deserved, that retired service members,
    earning retired pay as a result of 20 years or more of service, are
    forced to pay for their own disablement.
        Most disabilities are recognized after the service member retires.
    Some are discovered while the member is still performing active duty or
    as the result of a retirement physical. However, it is to the benefit
    of the Department of Defense to retire the member without compensation
    for any disability. Instead, the member is directed to the Department
    of Veterans' Affairs for compensatory relief for the damages incurred
    by the member while serving the Nation in uniform.
        FRA has encouraged Congress to take the helm and authorize and fund
    concurrent receipt for all qualified military non-disabled retirees who
    are eligible for and receiving veterans' compensation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        FRA is grateful to the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
    its goals for fiscal year 2006. Further information may be obtained by
    contacting Mr. Matthew Schafer, FRA Acting Director for Legislative
    Programs.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much and thank you for your
    patience in staying with us, the last witness of the day.
        Chief Barnes. Not a problem, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Questions, Senator?
        Senator Inouye. I just wanted to say that the FRA has a
    very, very active organization in Hawaii.
        Chief Barnes. Thank you, Senator, and congratulations on
    your recognition last year as our Pinnacle Award recipient----
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Chief Barnes. Following the distinguished chairman's
    receipt a couple years ago.
        Senator Stevens. That is right.
        Thank you again for your testimony.

                        ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

        If there are any additional statements that individuals
    would like to submit for the record, it will be held open for 5
    days.
        [The statements follow:]
     Prepared Statement of Sue Schwartz, DBA, RN, Co-Chairman, Health Care
     Committee, Military Officers Association of America, on Behalf of The
                            Military Coalition (TMC)

                                    OVERVIEW

        Mr. Chairman, The Military Coalition (TMC) thanks you and the
    entire subcommittee for your continued, unwavering support for funding
    the needs of active duty, Guard, Reserve and retired members of the
    uniformed services, and their families and survivors. The
    subcommittee's work to greatly improve military pay, eliminate out of
    pocket housing expenses, improve health care, and enhance other
    personnel programs has made a significant difference in the lives of
    active, Guard and Reserve personnel and their families. This is
    especially true for our deployed servicemembers and their families and
    survivors who are engaged throughout this world in the global war on
    terror.
        Despite these improvements in military compensation, we are deeply
    troubled by how much harder troops have to work--and how much more
    their families have to sacrifice--for that compensation.
        Today's reality is simple--servicemembers and their families are
    being asked to endure ever-greater workloads and ever-greater
    sacrifices. Repeated deployments, often near back-to-back, have
    stressed the force to the point where recruiting and retention are real
    concerns for some Services; and, if it weren't for the Services' stop-
    loss policies and massive recalls of Guard and Reserve members,
    readiness would suffer. The hard fact is that we don't have large
    enough forces to carry out today's missions and still be prepared for
    any new contingencies that may arise elsewhere in the world. In
    addition, the Coalition is concerned that the Navy and Air Force are in
    the midst of ``transformation'' initiatives that include reducing their
    respective end strengths despite continuing demanding operational
    commitments.
        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.

                                BUDGET OVERVIEW

        The Military Coalition is concerned that some in the Executive
    Branch are now bemoaning Congress' efforts in recent years to reverse
    military pay shortfalls and correct compensation and benefit inequities
    affecting retired military members, military survivors and Guard and
    Reserve members, contending that the cost of those initiatives impinges
    on current defense budget needs, including the ability to support
    compensation initiatives for the current force.
        The Coalition objects strongly to any such efforts to pit one
    segment of the military community against another. Our experience has
    been that this subcommittee has rarely turned down Defense Department
    requests for current force funding needs. If anything, Congress has had
    greater sensitivity than the Executive Branch--regardless of the
    political party of the administration--to the importance of career
    military benefits to long-term retention and readiness.
        Those who complain today about the cost of restoring military pay
    comparability, repealing REDUX retirement penalties, and enacting
    TRICARE For Life apparently do not recall that the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff at the time all told Congress that fixes were needed in these
    areas in order to address the significant retention problems
    experienced in the late 1990's.
        Congress has been wise enough to see what Executive Branch
    officials of both parties have not in recent years--that it is not
    enough to just meet the short term desires of the 19 year old new
    enlistee with more cash in hand. Those members get older and have
    families, and their families grow much more concerned at the second and
    third reenlistment points, often after multiple family separations,
    whether the long-term benefits of a military career offset the
    extraordinary and persistent demands and sacrifices inherent in serving
    20 to 30 years in uniform.
        The Military Coalition believes this subcommittee will see past
    penny-wise and pound-foolish efforts to rob one element of the military
    community to pay another, and will continue to recognize the hard-
    learned lessons of the past--that successfully sustaining readiness and
    retention over the long term requires fair treatment for military
    members and families at every stage: active duty, Guard and Reserve,
    retired, and survivors.

                              ACTIVE FORCE ISSUES

        Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the force and real
    defense spending has been cut by more than a third. In fact, the
    defense budget today is 3.8 percent of this Nation's Gross Domestic
    Product--less than half of the share it comprised in 1986. But today
    America's armed forces are engaged in a global war on terror--a
    campaign that has made constant and repeated deployments a way of life
    for today's servicemembers. There is no question that the stress of
    today's sustained operations is taking a significant toll on our men
    and women in uniform, and their families and survivors, and this is
    being reflected in failure of the Army Guard and Reserve to meet its
    recent recruiting goals. In addition, there are indications of growing
    challenges in recruiting members of the other Services.
        Congress has taken action to help relieve the stress of repeated
    deployments by increasing Army and Marine Corps end strength and by
    making family separation and danger area pays permanent. These are
    notable and commendable improvements; however, sustaining a quality
    force for the long-term remains a significant challenge, especially in
    technical specialties. While some Services are meeting retention goals,
    these goals may be skewed by post-9/11 patriotism and by Services'
    intermittent stop-loss policies. This artificial retention bubble is
    not sustainable for the long-term under the current pace of operations,
    despite the reluctance of some to see anything other than rosy
    scenarios.
        From the servicemembers' standpoint, the increased personnel tempo
    necessary to meet continued and sustained training and operational
    requirements has meant having to work progressively longer and harder
    every year. ``Time away from home'' is now a real focal point in the
    retention equation. Servicemembers are enduring longer duty days;
    increased family separations; difficulties in accessing affordable,
    quality health care; deteriorating military housing; 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 there is little
    question that once Service stop-loss policies are lifted, the retention
    of combat-experienced servicemembers is going to be problematic.
        Experienced (and predominantly married) officers, NCOs and petty
    officers are under pressure to make long-term career decisions against
    a backdrop of a demand for their skills and services in the private
    sector. 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. Faced
    with repeated deployments to a combat zone, the appeal of a more stable
    career and family life, often including an enhanced compensation
    package and less demanding working conditions, is attractive. When
    allowed the option, 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.
        On the recruiting front, one only needs to watch prime-time
    television to see powerful marketing efforts on the part of the
    Services. But this strong marketing must be backed up by an ability to
    retain these experienced and talented men and women. This is especially
    true as the Services become more and more reliant on technically
    trained personnel. Congress reacted to retention problems by improving
    military compensation elements. But we also understand the pressures to
    reduce spending and the challenges associated with proposed defense
    budget increases. The truth remains that the finest weapon systems in
    the world are of little use if the Services don't have enough high
    quality, well-trained people to operate, maintain and support them.
        The subcommittee's key challenge will be to ease servicemembers'
    debilitating workload stress and continue to build on the foundation of
    trust that you have established over the past 4 years--a trust that is
    being strained by years of disproportional sacrifice. Meeting this
    challenge will require a reasonable commitment of resources on several
    fronts.
        Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.--The Coalition has noted
    with disappointment the Department of Defense's resistance to accept
    Congress's repeated offers to permanently increase Service end strength
    to relieve the stress on today's armed forces, which are clearly
    sustaining a wearing operations tempo fighting today's global war on
    terror. While we are encouraged by the subcommittee's support for
    increased Army and Marine Corps end strength, we are deeply concerned
    that administration-proposed plans for temporary manpower increases
    rely too heavily on continuation of stop-loss policies, unrealistic
    retention assumptions, overuse of the Guard and Reserves, optimistic
    scenarios in Southwest Asia, and the absence of new contingency needs.
        While the Department's transformation vision is an understandable
    and necessary plan, its implementation will take a long time--time that
    is taking its toll after years of extraordinary operational tempo that
    is exhausting our downsized forces.
        The Joint Chiefs testified that their forces were stressed before
    9/11, and end strength should have been increased then. Now, almost 4
    years later, heavily engaged in two major operations with no end in
    sight, massive Guard and Reserve mobilizations, and implementation of
    ``stop-loss'' policies, action to provide substantial relief is late
    and short of the need. Especially noteworthy is a recent memorandum
    detailing serious Army Reserve readiness concerns referencing the
    Reserves as ``rapidly degenerating into a broken force.''
        Administration and military leaders warn of a long-term mission
    against terrorism that requires sustained, large deployments to Central
    Asia and elsewhere. The Services simply do not have sufficient numbers
    to sustain the global war on terrorism, deployments, training exercises
    and other commitments, even with the recall of large numbers of Guard
    and Reserve personnel. Service leaders have tried to alleviate the
    situation by reorganizing deployable units, authorizing ``family down
    time'' following redeployment, or other laudable initiatives, but such
    things do little to eliminate long-term workload or training backlogs,
    and pale in the face of ever-increasing mission requirements. For too
    many years, there has always been another major contingency coming, on
    top of all the existing ones. If the administration does not recognize
    when extra missions exceed the capacity to perform them, Congress must
    assume that obligation.
        Some argue that increasing end strengths wouldn't help the
    situation, questioning whether the Services will be able to meet higher
    recruiting goals. The Coalition believes strongly that this difficult
    problem can and must be addressed as an urgent national priority, with
    increases in recruiting budgets as necessary.
        Others point to high reenlistment rates in deployed units in
    certain Services as evidence that high operations tempo actually
    improves morale. But much of the reenlistment rate anomaly is
    attributable to tax incentives that encourage members to accelerate or
    defer reenlistment to ensure this occurs in a combat zone, so that any
    reenlistment bonus will be tax-free. Retention statistics are also
    skewed by stop-loss policies. Experience has shown time and again that
    family separation is the single greatest retention disincentive. The
    Military Coalition believes that those who ignore this and argue there
    is no retention problem are ``whistling past the graveyard.''
        The Military Coalition strongly recommends additional funding for
    permanent end strength increases to sustain the long-term global war on
    terrorism and fulfill national military strategy. The Coalition
    supports increases in recruiting resources as necessary to meet this
    requirement and ease operational stresses on active, Guard and Reserve
    personnel.
        Accession and Retention Bonuses.--In the interim, maintaining and
    increasing accession and retention bonuses is crucial to meet manning
    requirements. The Services have requested increased bonus authority and
    special pay authority, as well as more flexible authorities, to meet
    specific manning, retention and assignment needs. The Coalition
    strongly supports these efforts and hopes the Subcommittee will provide
    the full funding needed to sustain these critical programs.
        The Military Coalition strongly recommends additional funding to
    increase accession and retention bonuses.
        Combat and Incentive Pays During Hospitalization.--The Coalition is
    concerned that current eligibility rules for combat zone compensation
    programs are insensitive to the circumstances of wounded members during
    hospitalization and rehabilitation.
        Members assigned to combat zones, as well as those performing
    hazardous duty elsewhere, are eligible for additional compensation
    because the country recognizes the increased risk to life and limb
    entailed in such duty. Yet the members who are injured or wounded lose
    eligibility for hazardous duty/combat incentive programs during their
    hospitalization and recovery from their injuries. In many cases, this
    recovery can take months, and their families may be subject to
    additional expenses because of their incapacity.
        If we acknowledge that members deserve these extra pays for
    incurring the risk inherent in a combat zone, we should also
    acknowledge an obligation to continue such pays for those who actually
    incur combat injuries until they can be returned to duty, retired, or
    separated.
        The Military Coalition strongly urges the subcommittee to take
    action to ensure servicemembers injured or wounded as a result of
    hazardous duty/combat do not have their compensation reduced during
    periods of hospitalization. The Coalition believes funding support is
    essential to sustain compensation for servicemembers who continue to
    suffer from the wounds and injuries these incentive programs were
    created to recognize.
        Commissaries.--The Coalition is committed to preserving the value
    of the commissary benefit--which is widely recognized as the
    cornerstone of quality of life benefits and a valued part of
    servicemembers' total compensation package.
        In the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, Congress enacted
    stronger statutory protections for the commissary and exchange systems.
        The Coalition supports cost savings through effective oversight and
    management. However, we are concerned about the unrelenting pressure on
    the Defense Commissary Agency to cut spending and squeeze additional
    efficiencies from its operations--despite years of effective reform
    initiatives and recognition of the agency for instituting improved
    business practices.
        The commissary is a highly valued quality of life benefit whose
    savings and retention value for military members far exceeds the
    appropriated amount.
        The Military Coalition opposes initiatives that would reduce
    Commissary benefits or savings for members, and strongly supports full
    funding of the benefit in fiscal year 2006 and beyond to sustain the
    current level of service for all patrons, including retirees, Guard and
    Reserve personnel, and their families.
        Family Readiness and Support.--Today, two-thirds of active duty
    families and virtually all Guard and Reserve families live off military
    installations, and approximately 60 percent 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.
        More needs to be done to ``connect'' servicemembers and their
    families with important resources. A more aggressive outreach effort is
    needed to educate servicemembers and their families on the benefits and
    programs to which they are entitled. A systematic and integrated family
    support system will help families cope with the stresses of deployment
    and the demands of military life. Addressing such issues as childcare,
    spousal employment/education, flexible spending accounts, increases in
    SGLI, and other quality of life concerns will go a long way in
    enhancing family well-being and improving retention and morale of the
    force.
        The Military Coalition urges additional funding for improved family
    readiness through further education and outreach programs and increased
    childcare availability for servicemembers and their families and
    associated support structure to assist families left behind during
    deployments of active duty, Guard and Reserve members.
        Death Benefits Enhancement.--Military insurance and death gratuity
    fall short of what is needed when measured by private sector standards
    for employees in hazardous occupations.
        The fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act will
    increase the death gratuity and upgrade military life insurance
    programs. Continued funding for these significant upgrades is essential
    for fiscal year 2006 and the out years.
        The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to fully fund
    military death benefits improvements.

                       NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

        More than 473,000 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 any time since
    World War II.
        Guard/Reserve operational tempo has placed enormous strains on
    reservists, their family members and their civilian employers alike.
    Homeland defense and war-on-terror operations continue to place demands
    on citizen soldiers that were never anticipated under the ``Total
    Force'' policy. The Coalition understands and fully supports that
    policy and the prominent role of the Guard and Reserve forces in the
    national security equation.
        However, many Guard and Reserve members are facing increased
    financial burdens under the current policy of multiple extended
    activations over the course of a reserve career. Some senior reserve
    leaders are rightly alarmed over likely manpower losses if action is
    not taken to relieve pressures on Guard and Reserve troops. The
    Coalition believes that addressing critical Guard and Reserve pay,
    bonuses, benefits and entitlements issues--along with active duty
    manpower increases--are needed to alleviate those pressures and help
    retain these qualified, trained professionals.
        Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.--The
    Military Coalition is very grateful that Congress established the
    ``TRICARE Reserve Select'' health benefit in the fiscal year 2005
    National Defense Authorization Act. This new authority--along with
    permanent pre- and post- activation TRICARE coverage--will help address
    the needs of Guard and Reserve families in the call-up pipeline. We
    anticipate that further improvements in this program are likely to be
    forthcoming in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act.
        More specifically, with the increasing rate of utilization for all
    areas of our Reserve Components increasing, we feel that Congress must
    act to provide increased health care benefits for all our country's
    Guardsmen, Reservists, and their families, to guarantee the Nation can
    continue to call on them.
        It is our strong recommendation that we must provide and fund a
    permanent TRICARE program on a cost-share basis for our members of the
    Guard and Reserve components who are being mobilized and deployed at
    increasing rates.
        Seventy percent of Guard and Reserve members have employer-
    sponsored health insurance. The Coalition believes this is not a ``one
    size fits all'' population. Usage of the TRICARE benefit when the
    servicemember is activated may not be the best way to ensure continuity
    of care for some families. As an option for these servicemembers, the
    Coalition urges Congress to take action to have the government pay part
    or all of private health insurance premiums when activation occurs, a
    program already in effect for reservists who work for the Department of
    Defense.
        The Military Coalition recommends funding to allow permanent
    authorization of cost-share access to TRICARE for all members of the
    Selected Reserve and IRR members subject to activation under
    Presidential call-up authority, to support readiness, family morale,
    and deployment health preparedness.
        Eliminate BAH II.--BAH II is paid to Guard and Reserve members in
    lieu of regular BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) who are on orders of
    less than 140 days. BAH II is an antiquated standard that no longer
    bears any relation to real housing expenses and is, on average, far
    less than the BAH rate for any given locality. There is an exception to
    this rule that applies, by public law, for those called up for a
    contingency operation. The Coalition believes strongly that any member
    activated for 30 days or more should be eligible for locality-based
    BAH.
        The Military Coalition urges appropriation of funding to permit
    payment of locality-based BAH to all Guard and Reserve members
    mobilized for 30 days or more.
        Family Support Programs.--Providing a core set of family programs
    and benefits that meet the unique needs of these families would go a
    long way in improving morale and 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:
      --Expansion of web-based programs and employee and family assistance
            programs like Military One Source and Guard Family.org;
      --Enforcement of command responsibility for ensuring that programs
            are in place to meet the special information and support needs
            of Guard/Reserve families;
      --Expanded programs between military and community religious leaders
            to support service members and families during all phases of
            deployments;
      --The availability of robust preventative counseling services for
            service members and families and training so they know when to
            seek professional help related to their circumstances;
      --Enhanced education for Reserve component family members about their
            rights and benefits;
      --Innovative and effective ways to meet Reserve component community
            needs for occasional child care, particularly for preventative
            respite care, volunteering, family readiness group meetings and
            drill time; and,
      --A joint family readiness program to facilitate understanding and
            sharing of information between all family members, no matter
            what the service.
        We applaud the support shown to families by DOD and military and
    civilian community organizations. But with the continued and sustained
    activation of the Reserve Component, a stronger support structure needs
    to be implemented, funded, and sustained.
        The Military Coalition urges Congress to increase funding for
    military family support programs to meet the unique needs of the
    families of mobilized Guard and Reserve component members.

                                  HEALTH CARE

        The Military Coalition (TMC) is most appreciative of the
    subcommittee's efforts to honor the government's health care
    commitments to all uniformed services beneficiaries. While much has
    been accomplished, we are equally concerned about making sure that
    subcommittee-directed changes are implemented and the desired positive
    effects actually achieved.

                   FULL FUNDING FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH BUDGET

        Once again, a top Coalition priority is to work with Congress and
    DOD to ensure full funding of the Defense Health Budget to meet
    readiness needs--including graduate medical education and continuing
    education, full funding of both direct care and purchased care sectors,
    providing access to the military health care system for all uniformed
    services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status or location. An
    underfunded Defense Health Program inevitably compromises the
    capability to deliver desired levels of quality care and undermines the
    health care benefits military beneficiaries have earned. A fully funded
    health care benefit is critical to readiness and the retention of
    qualified uniformed service personnel.
        The subcommittee's continued oversight of the defense health budget
    is essential to avoid a return to the chronic under funding of recent
    years that led to execution shortfalls, shortchanging of the direct
    care system, inadequate equipment capitalization, failure to invest in
    infrastructure, curtailed drug formularies, and reliance on annual
    emergency supplemental funding requests as a substitute for candid and
    conscientious budget planning. We are grateful that once again late
    last year, Congress provided $683 million supplemental appropriations
    to meet the last quarter's obligations--but not all of the growing
    requirements in support of the deployment of forces to Southwest Asia
    and Afghanistan in the global war against terrorism.
        The Coalition is hopeful that fiscal year 2006 funding levels will
    not fall short of current obligations. We fear that additional
    supplemental funding will once again be required. Last year, citing
    budgetary restraints, the Air Force made a unilateral decision to
    remove certain drugs from military treatment facility (MTF)
    formularies. We appreciate that these are extremely challenging budget
    times for MTF commanders; however, we are greatly concerned that this
    budget-driven action undermined the deliberative process by which the
    Uniform Formulary must be developed.
        In addition, this policy forced increased use of mail-order and
    retail pharmacy programs, and thus increased costs to both DOD and
    beneficiaries; inappropriately made budget considerations the primary
    driver of formulary limits; and imposed regrettable inter-service
    disparities in pharmacy benefits.
        Health care requirements for members returning from the GWOT are
    also expected to continue to strain the military delivery system in
    ways that may not have been anticipated in the budgeting process.
    Similarly, implementation of the TRICARE Standard requirements in the
    fiscal year 2004 Authorization Act--particularly those requiring
    actions to attract more TRICARE providers--will almost certainly
    require additional resources that we do not believe are being budgeted
    for. Financial support for these increased readiness requirements;
    TRICARE provider shortfalls and other needs will most likely require
    additional funding.
        At the January 2005 TRICARE Conference, Assistant Secretary
    Winkenwerder said that funding for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 was
    adequate. However, he went on to state, ``looking to the longer term,
    I'm candidly concerned.'' At the same conference Air Force Chief of
    Staff Gen. John Jumper said that the health system faces an $11 billion
    shortfall over the next few years.
        The Military Coalition strongly recommends the subcommittee ensure
    full funding of the Defense Health Program, including military medical
    readiness, needed TRICARE Standard improvements, and the DOD peacetime
    health care mission. It is critical that the Defense Health Budget be
    sufficient to secure increased numbers of providers needed to ensure
    access for TRICARE beneficiaries in all parts of the country.

                                 TRICARE ISSUES

        Provider Reimbursement.--The Coalition appreciates Congress's
    efforts to address provider reimbursement needs in the fiscal year 2004
    NDAA (Public Law 108-136). We recognize that part of the problem is
    endemic to the flawed Medicare reimbursement system, to which TRICARE
    rates are directly tied.
        The Coalition is troubled to note that a flaw in the provider
    reimbursement formula led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)
    to propose cutting Medicare fees in recent years, which were only
    forestalled by last-minute legislative relief. While the Coalition is
    grateful for Congress's temporary fixes, the reimbursement formula
    remains broken.
        Once again, the Coalition wishes to bring to the subcommittee's
    attention that the 2004 report of the Medicare Trustees predicts 5
    percent annual cuts in Medicare reimbursements to providers for 2006
    through 2012. However, MedPAC has recommended raising Medicare's
    physician payment rate by 2.7 percent in 2006, stating that a ``small
    but consistent share'' of beneficiaries have experienced some
    difficulty in accessing providers.
        Cuts in Medicare (and thus TRICARE) provider payments, on top of
    providers' increasing overhead costs and rapidly rising medical
    liability expenses, seriously jeopardizes providers' willingness to
    participate in both these programs. Provider resistance is much more
    pronounced for TRICARE than Medicare for a variety of social, workload,
    and administrative reasons. Provider groups tell us that TRICARE is
    seen as the lowest-paying program they deal with, and often causes them
    the most administrative problems. This is a terrible combination of
    perceptions if you are a TRICARE Standard patient trying to find a
    doctor.
        For patients in Prime the situation is growing increasingly
    problematic as deployments of large numbers of military health
    professionals continue to diminish the capacity of the military's
    direct health care system. In this situation, more and more TRICARE
    patients have to turn to the purchased care sector--thus putting more
    demands on civilian providers who are reluctant to take an even larger
    number of beneficiaries with relatively low-paying TRICARE coverage.
        The Coalition firmly believes this is a readiness issue. Our
    deployed service men and women need to focus on their mission, without
    having to worry whether their family members back home can find a
    provider. Uniformed services beneficiaries deserve the Nation's best
    health care, not the cheapest.
        Congress did the right thing by reversing the proposed provider
    payment cuts previously planned for March 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004,
    and instead providing 1.6 percent and 1.5 percent payment increases
    respectively. Unless Congress or the administration acts soon,
    effective next year, providers will have to absorb a 5 percent cut for
    TRICARE patients as well as Medicare patients. More importantly, the
    underlying formula needs to be fixed to eliminate the need for
    perennial ``band-aid'' corrections.
        The Military Coalition requests the subcommittee's support of any
    means to stabilize, maintain and fund Medicare and TRICARE provider
    payment rates to ensure beneficiary access.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Military Coalition reiterates its profound gratitude for the
    extraordinary progress this subcommittee has made in advancing a wide
    range of personnel and health care initiatives for all uniformed
    services personnel and their families and survivors. The Coalition is
    eager to work with the subcommittee in pursuit of the goals outlined in
    our testimony. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the
    Coalition's views on these critically important topics.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Naval Reserve Association

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of our 22,000 members, and in advocacy for the
    80,000 active Naval Reservists and the mirrored interest of Guard and
    Reserve personnel, we are grateful for the opportunity to submit
    testimony, and for your efforts in this hearing.
        We very much appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee, the full
    committee on Appropriations and like committees in the House of
    Representatives to support our deployed personnel and their families.
    Your willingness to address and correct issues facing Guardsmen and
    Reservists affirms their value to the defense of our great Nation. Your
    recognition of these men and women as equal partners in time of war
    stands you well in the eyes of many. Our young Naval Reservists
    indicate to us that they are watching and waiting to see our actions to
    address their concerns. Your willingness to look at issues related to
    the use of the Guard and Reserve on the basis of fairness sets the
    Legislative Branch well above the Executive Branch which seemingly
    develops its positions on the basis of cost.
        That said, there are issues that need to be addressed by this
    committee and this Congress.
        Recruiting and retention issues are moving to center stage for all
    services and their reserve components. In all likelihood the Navy will
    not meet its target for 13,000 new Naval Reservists and the Naval
    Reserve will be challenged to appreciably slow the departure of 17,000
    experienced personnel this fiscal year. Other services and their
    Reserve Components likely face these same challenges.
        We believe that Congress and this committee should give the
    services the tools targeted to mid-career personnel in the Guard and
    Reserve: (1) appropriate critical skills bonuses for Guardsmen and
    Reservists (G&R) that would provide $100,000 over an entire career (no
    authorization exists for G&R personnel while one with a $200,000 limit
    exists for active duty personnel); (2) increase affiliation bonuses to
    $15,000 to attract veterans; (3) restore the Reserve MGIB to 50 percent
    of the active duty entitlement (presently at 28 percent) and make it
    available throughout a career; (4) Provide the resources to maintain
    Navy Reserve end strength at 66,000 Selected Reservists and 13,500 for
    FTS personnel; and (5) Provide supportive language that provides for an
    earlier than age 60 retirement.
        We've heard that Reserve Chiefs are in agreement, expressing
    concern that senior personnel will leave in droves. Hopefully this is
    more than conscript thinking. A compromise solution to this earlier
    than age 60 retirement issue is something modeled after Social
    Security--if you take reserve retirement as early as age 55 you do so
    with a greatly reduced annuity for life. This NRA-conceived proposal
    would significantly reduce the estimated costs to the government over
    other plans being proposed. The money has been accrued; the costs then
    would be those associated with administering monthly payments earlier
    than expected and any lost interest on the accrued amount. The greatly
    reduced annuity for life may very well serve as a disincentive to early
    retirement for the senior leaders who truly have upwardly mobile
    careers.
        We ask you to fund Navy Reserve equipment in the NGREA accounts,
    including an additional C-40 aircraft that is critical for supporting
    Reserve forces in today's Global War on Terrorism. The Navy Reserve is
    downsizing. Naval Reserve units are engaged in this Global War, and
    these units, the people, and their families are responding to Combatant
    Commanders calls. We must maintain the proper equipment for these Navy
    Reserve units and Navy Reserve Sailors. The AC will not do it, yet will
    call on them to respond. Only through the NGREA will your citizen-
    Sailors be able to respond to the needs of the Nation and Combatant
    Commanders.
        These recommendations are relevant to the needs of the services
    today, and to the future readiness of the Nation. The last two issues
    (end-strength cap) and (early retirement) are on the minds of many
    Guardsmen and Reservists. We urge you to address these issues as our
    young Sailors are very concerned about these issues, and what it means
    to their long term service.
        In summary, we believe the committee needs to address the following
    issues for our Guardsman and Reservists in the best interest of our
    National Security:
      --Increase funding for Naval Reserve equipment in NGREA
      --Address and authorize recruitment and retention issues:
        --Authorize critical skills bonuses for Guardsmen and Reservists--
                $100,000 over an entire career
        --Increase affiliation bonuses to $15,000 to attract veterans
        --Restore Reserve MGIB to 50 percent of the active duty entitlement
      --Establish 79,500 SelRes (66,000) and FTS (13,500) as a floor for
            end strength to Navy Reserve manpower--providing for surge-
            ability and operational support
      --Substantiate that Navy Reserve equipment remain a part of the Chief
            of Naval Reserve inventory
      --Reduce annuity for reserve retirement before age 60 is a retention
            issue, and must be addressed by this Congress.
        For Navy Reserve NGREA accounts we recommend the following: (1) C-
    40 Procurement--procure 1 additional C-40 for fiscal year 2006; (2)
    Equipment for Naval Coastal Warfare/Small Arms--Emerging GWOT
    requirement EOD/NCW equipment for Naval Coastal Warfare units; (3)
    Reserve Requirements--for activation--Funds associated for Reservist
    mobilize for GWOT.
        The above are a part of the Navy's unfunded list; however, there
    are other items that must be addressed in the NGREA account. Guard and
    Reserve Components still need the funding Congress provides through
    this means.
        We thank the committee for consideration of these tools to assist
    the Guard and Reserve in an age of increased sacrifice and utilization
    of these forces.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Neurofibromatosis, Inc.--New England

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony
    to the subcommittee on the importance of continued funding for
    Neurofibromatosis (NF), a terrible genetic disorder directly associated
    with military purposes and closely linked too many common diseases
    widespread among the American population.
        I am Naomi Stonberg, representing Neurofibromatosis, Inc., New
    England which is a participant in a national coalition of NF advocacy
    groups. I am actively involved in creating awareness of NF and
    promoting scientific research in this area. I am here on behalf of the
    100,000 Americans who suffer from NF, including my daughter and nephew,
    as well as approximately 175 million Americans who suffer from diseases
    linked to NF, including some of the most common forms of cancer, brain
    tumors, congenital heart disease, hypertension, memory loss and
    learning disabilities.
        Mr. Chairman, I am requesting increased support, in the amount of
    $25 million, to continue the Army's highly successful NF Research
    Program (NFRP), which is now at the critical point of establishing a
    nation-wide clinical trials consortia. The program's great success can
    be seen in the commencement of clinical trials only 10 years since the
    discovery of the NF1 gene. Now, with NF in the expensive but critical
    era of clinical and translational research, scientists closely involved
    with the Army program have stated that the number of high-quality
    scientific applications justify a much larger program.

                        WHAT IS NEUROFIBROMATOSIS (NF)?

        NF is a genetic disorder involving the uncontrolled growth of
    tumors along the nervous system which can result in terrible
    disfigurement, deformity, deafness, blindness, brain tumors, cancer,
    and/or death. NF can also cause other abnormalities such as unsightly
    benign tumors across the entire body and bone deformities. In addition,
    approximately one-half of children with NF suffer from learning
    disabilities. NF is the most common neurological disorder caused by a
    single gene. While not all NF patients suffer from the most severe
    symptoms, all NF patients and their families live with the uncertainty
    of not knowing whether they will be seriously affected one day because
    NF is a highly variable and progressive disease.
        Approximately 100,000 Americans have NF. It appears in
    approximately one in every 3,500 births and strikes worldwide, without
    regard to gender, race or ethnicity. It is estimated that 50 percent of
    new cases result from a spontaneous mutation in an individual's genes
    and 50 percent are inherited. There are two types of NF: NF1, which is
    more common, and NF2, which primarily involves acoustic neuromas and
    other tumors, causing deafness and balance problems. Advances in NF
    research will benefit over 175 million Americans in this generation
    alone because NF is directly linked to many of the most common diseases
    affecting the general population, as indicated above.

                        NF'S CONNECTION TO THE MILITARY

        NF research is directly linked to military purposes because NF is
    closely linked to cancer, brain tumors, memory loss, learning
    disabilities, heart disease, brain tissue degeneration, nervous system
    degeneration, healing after wounding, deafness, and balance. Because NF
    manifests itself in the nervous system, this subcommittee, in past
    Report language, has stated that Army-supported research on NF includes
    important investigations into genetic mechanisms governing peripheral
    nerve regeneration after injury from such things as missile wounds and
    chemical toxins. For the same reason, this subcommittee also stated
    that NF may be relevant to understanding Gulf War Syndrome and to
    gaining a better understanding of wound healing. Today, NF research now
    includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms which involve
    not just the nervous system but also other cancers.

                            LINK TO OTHER ILLNESSES

        Researchers have determined that NF is closely linked to cancer,
    heart disease, learning disabilities, memory loss, brain tumors, and
    other disorders including deafness, blindness and orthopedic disorders,
    primarily because NF regulates important pathways common to these other
    disorders such as the RAS, cAMP and PAK pathways. Research on NF
    therefore stands to benefit millions of Americans.
        Cancer.--Research has demonstrated that NF's tumor suppressor
    protein, neurofibromin, inhibits RAS, one of the major malignancy
    causing growth proteins involved in 30 percent of all cancer.
    Accordingly, advances in NF research may well lead to treatments and
    cures not only for NF patients but for all those who suffer from cancer
    and tumor-related disorders. Similar studies have also linked epidermal
    growth factor receptor (EGF-R) to malignant peripheral nerve sheath
    tumors (MPNSTs), a form of cancer which disproportionately strikes NF
    patients.
        Heart disease.--Researchers have demonstrated that mice completely
    lacking in NF1 have congenital heart disease that involves the
    endocardial cushions which form in the valves of the heart. This is
    because the same ras involved in cancer also causes heart valves to
    close. Neurofibromin, the protein produced by a normal NF1 gene,
    suppresses ras, thus opening up the heart valve. Promising new research
    has also connected NF1 to cells lining the blood vessels of the heart,
    with implications for other vascular disorders including hypertension,
    which affects approximately 50 million Americans. Researchers believe
    that further understanding of how an NF1 deficiency leads to heart
    disease may help to unravel molecular pathways affected in genetic and
    environmental causes of heart disease.
        Memory Loss and Learning Disabilities.--Because NF regulates and
    controls pathways vital to cognition, the RAS and the cyclic AMP
    pathways, researchers have determined that NF is directly linked to
    memory loss and learning disabilities affecting over 25 million and 35
    million Americans respectively. Indeed, 5 percent of the world's
    population suffers from learning disabilities alone. NF researchers
    have successfully rescued learning deficits, including memory loss and
    learning disabilities, in pre-clinical animal models, which will
    benefit all people suffering from these conditions, not just those with
    NF. In addition, by curing learning disabilities, Federal, State, and
    local governments and school districts will save billions of dollars in
    special education costs.
        Deafness.--NF2 accounts for approximately 5 percent of genetic
    forms of deafness. It is also related to other types of tumors,
    including schwannomas and meningiomas, as well as being a major cause
    of balance problems.

                     THE ARMY'S CONTRIBUTION TO NF RESEARCH

        Recognizing NF's importance to both the military and to the general
    population, Congress has given the Army's NF Research Program strong
    bipartisan support. After the initial 3-year grants were successfully
    completed, Congress appropriated continued funding for the Army NF
    Research Program on an annual basis. From fiscal year 1996 through
    fiscal year 2005, this funding has amounted to $155.3 million, in
    addition to the original $8 million appropriation in fiscal year 1992.
    Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2004, 138 awards have been
    granted to researchers across the country. The Army program funds
    innovative, groundbreaking research which would not otherwise have been
    pursued, and has produced major advances in NF research, such as the
    development of advanced animal models, preclinical therapeutic
    experimentation and clinical trials. The program has brought new
    researchers into the field of NF, as can be seen by the nearly 60
    percent increase in applications in the past year alone. Unfortunately,
    despite this increase, the number of awards has remained relatively
    constant over the past couple of years resulting in many highly
    qualified applications going unfunded. Army officials administering
    this program have indicated in the past that they could easily fund 30
    percent more applications if funding were available because of the high
    quality of the research applications received.
        In order to ensure maximum efficiency, the Army collaborates
    closely with other Federal agencies that are involved in NF research,
    such as NIH and the VA. Senior program staff from the National Cancer
    Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
    and Stroke (NINDS), for example, has sat on the Army's NF Research
    Program's Integration Panel which sets the long-term vision and funding
    strategies for the program. This assures the highest scientific
    standard for research funding, efficiency and coordination while
    avoiding duplication or overlapping of research efforts.
        Because of the enormous advances that have been made as a result of
    the Army's NF Research Program, research in NF has truly become one of
    the great success stories in the current revolution in molecular
    genetics, leading one major researcher to conclude that more is known
    about NF genetically than any other disease. Accordingly, many medical
    researchers believe that NF should serve as a model to study all
    diseases. Indeed, in just over a dozen years since the discovery of the
    NF1 gene, researchers have successfully cured both NF's cognitive and
    tumor disorders in mice, have successfully removed NF tumors in at
    least one clinical trial involving human patients and are now on the
    threshold of developing a treatment and cure for this terrible disease.
        In just the past few years, scientists have made major
    breakthroughs bringing NF fully into the translational era, with
    treatments close at hand. These recent advances have included:
      --Phase II and Phase III clinical trials involving new drug
            therapies;
      --Creation of a National Clinical Trials Consortia and NF Centers;
      --Successfully eliminating tumors in NF1 and NF2 mice with the same
            drug;
      --Developing advanced mouse models showing human symptoms;
      --Rescuing learning deficits and eliminating tumors in mice with the
            same drug;
      --Linking NF to vascular disorders such as congenital heart disease
            and hypertension, affecting more than 50 million Americans; and
      --Conducting natural history studies to analyze the progression of
            the disease.

                               FUTURE DIRECTIONS

        NF research has now advanced to the translational and clinical
    stages which hold incredible promise for NF patients, as well as for
    patients who suffer from many of the diseases linked to NF. This
    research is costly and will require an increased commitment on the
    Federal level. Specifically, future investment in the following areas
    would continue to advance research on NF:
      --Clinical trials;
      --Funding of a clinical trials network to connect patients with
            experimental therapies;
      --Development of NF Centers, tissue banks, and patient registries;
      --Development of new drug and genetic therapies;
      --Further development of advanced animal models;
      --Expansion of biochemical research on the functions of the NF gene
            and discovery of new targets for drug therapy; and
      --Natural history studies and identification of modifier genes--
            studies are already underway to provide a baseline for testing
            potential therapies and differentiate among different
            phenotypes of NF.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2006 REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, the Army's highly successful NF Research Program has
    shown tangible results and direct military application with broad
    implications for the general population. The program has now advanced
    to the translational and clinical research stages, which are the most
    promising, yet the most expensive direction that NF research has taken.
    The program has succeeded in its mission to bring new researchers and
    new approaches to research into the field. Therefore, increased funding
    is now needed to take advantage of promising avenues of investigation,
    to continue to build on the successes of this program, and to fund this
    promising research thereby continuing the enormous return on the
    taxpayers' investment.
        I respectfully request an appropriation of $25 million in your
    fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for the Army
    Neurofibromatosis Research Program. This is level funding from the
    fiscal year 2005 level of $25 million.
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to providing a clear military benefit,
    the DOD's Neurofibromatosis Research Program also provides hope for the
    100,000 Americans who suffer from NF, as well as the tens of millions
    of Americans who suffer from NF's related diseases such as cancer,
    learning disabilities, memory loss, heart disease, and brain tumors.
    Leading researchers now believe that we are on the threshold of a
    treatment and a cure for this terrible disease. With this
    subcommittee's continued support, we will prevail.
        Thank you for your support of this program and I appreciate the
    opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Stevens. This subcommittee will reconvene again
    tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. for a closed session to review the
    fiscal year 2006 defense intelligence budget. We will stand in
    recess until that time.
        [Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 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
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado, Statement of..     2
    Armen, Harry, Ph.D., President, American Society of Mechanical
      Engineers......................................................   633
        Prepared Statement of........................................   635
    Arthur, Vice Admiral Donald C., Medical Corps, Surgeon General,
      United States Navy, Medical Programs, Department of Defense....   429
        Prepared Statement of........................................   432
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   494
    Austin, Lieutenant Colonel Paul N., CRNA, Ph.D., U.S. Air Force
      (Retired), on behalf of the American Association of Nurse
      Anesthetists...................................................   617
        Prepared Statement of........................................   618

    Barnes, Master Chief Joseph L., U.S. Navy (Retired), National
      Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association.................   686
        Prepared Statement of........................................   687
    Blum, Lieutenant General H Steven, United States Army, Chief,
      National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense...................   237
        Prepared Statement of........................................   245
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   289
    Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   406
        Statement of.................................................   349
    Bradley, Lieutenant General John A., Chief, Air Force Reserve,
      United States Air Force, Department of Defense.................   330
        Prepared Statement of........................................   331
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   344
    Brannon, Major General Barbara C., Assistant Air Force Surgeon
      General for Nursing Services, Department of the Air Force,
      Medical Programs, Department of Defense........................   474
        Prepared Statement of........................................   476
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   510
    Bruno, Colonel Barbara J., AN, Deputy Chief, Army Nurse Corps,
      United States Army, Medical Programs, Department of Defense....   459
        Prepared Statement of........................................   461
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   503
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana, Prepared
      Statements of..................................................10, 77
    Byrd Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by........................................26, 225

    Cartwright, General James E., United States Marine Corps,
      Commander, United States Strategic Command, Missile Defense
      Program, Department of Defense.................................   517
        Prepared Statement of........................................   521
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   549
        Summary Statement of.........................................   519
    Clark, Admiral Vern, Chief of Naval Operations, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.......    99
        Prepared Statement of........................................   123
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   188
        Summary Statement of.........................................   120
    Cochran Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   225
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   25,
               28, 89, 92, 187, 188, 190, 230, 289, 290, 291, 343, 344, 553
        Statements of......................................2, 239, 348, 519
    Cotton, Vice Admiral John G., Chief, Naval Reserve, United States
      Navy, Department of Defense....................................   312
        Prepared Statement of........................................   312
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   342

    D'Innocenzo, Donetta, Public Policy Committee, the Leukemia &
      Lymphoma Society...............................................   652
        Prepared Statement of........................................   653
    Destler, William W., Ph.D., Provost, University of Maryland,
      College Park, on behalf of the Association of American
      Universities...................................................   639
        Prepared Statement of........................................   640
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
      Questions Submitted by................90, 92, 189, 190, 488, 550, 553
    Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., Acting Secretary of the Air Force,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of the Air Force,
      Department of Defense..........................................   193
        Prepared Statement of........................................   195
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   225
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Statement of...................................................   239
    Duggan, Dennis Michael, Deputy Director, National Security
      Commission, The American Legion................................   611
        Prepared Statement of........................................   612

    England, Hon. Gordon R., Secretary of the Navy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.......    99
        Prepared Statement of........................................   103
        Question Submitted to........................................   187
        Summary Statement of.........................................   101

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by.......................................407, 557
    Foil, Martin B., Jr., Member, Board of Directors, National Brain
      Injury Research, Treatment, and Training Foundation............   606
        Prepared Statement of........................................   607

    Goldberg, Joan, Executive Director, American Society for Bone and
      Mineral Research, Prepared Statement of........................   603
    Goldman, Patricia, President Emeritus, on behalf of the Ovarian
      Cancer National Alliance.......................................   656
        Prepared Statement of........................................   658
    Guerra, Mary Ann, Senior Vice President for Research Operations,
      Translational Genomics Research Institute, on behalf of the
      National Prostate Cancer Coalition.............................   668
        Prepared Statement of........................................   670
    Hagee, General Michael W., Commandant, United States Marine
      Corps, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Navy,
      Department of Defense..........................................    99
        Prepared Statement of........................................   150
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   190
        Summary Statement of.........................................   148
    Hanson, Captain Marshall, U.S. Naval Reserve (Retired), Chairman,
      Associations for America's Defense.............................   578
        Prepared Statement of........................................   579
    Harvey, Hon. Francis, Secretary of the Army, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.......    31
        Prepared Statement of........................................    36
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    89
    Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief and Commander, Army
      Reserves, United States Army, Department of Defense............   295
        Prepared Statement of........................................   296
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   341
    Hickey, Sydney, on behalf of the National Military Family
      Association....................................................   643
    Hinestrosa, Carolina, Executive Vice President of Programs and
      Planning, National Breast Cancer Coalition.....................   596
        Prepared Statement of........................................   598
    Hoehn, Jim, on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR (Experimental
      Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) States..............   622
    Hurd, Captain Robert C., U.S. Navy (Retired).....................   673
        Prepared Statement of........................................   674
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   556

    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
        Prepared Statements of............................32, 215, 238, 518
        Questions Submitted by......................................96, 491
        Statements of......................32, 100, 215, 238, 348, 420, 518

    James, Lieutenant General Daniel, III, Director, Air National
      Guard, United States Air Force, Department of Defense..........   268
        Prepared Statement of........................................   254
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   291
    Jonas, Tina W., Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Under
      Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense.........1, 347
        Opening Statement of.........................................     2
        Prepared Statement of........................................     4
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    24
    Jumper, General John P., Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............   193
        Prepared Statement of........................................   195
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   228

    Kiley, Lieutenant General Kevin C., M.D., Surgeon General,
      Department of the Army, Medical Programs, Department of Defense   419
        Biographical Sketch of.......................................   429
        Prepared Statement of........................................   423
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   487
    Koper, Brigadier General Stephen, U.S. Air Force (Retired),
      President, National Guard Association of the United States.....   661
        Prepared Statement of........................................   664
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Questions Submitted by......................416, 492, 496, 500, 502
        Statement of.................................................   240
    Lescavage, Rear Admiral Nancy J., Navy Nurse Corps, United States
      Navy, Medical Programs, Department of Defense..................   467
        Prepared Statement of........................................   470
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   507
    Lukas, Susan E., Legislative Director, Reserve Officers
      Association of the United States...............................   567
        Prepared Statement of........................................   568

    Matz, Major General William, Jr., U.S. Army (Retired), President,
      National Association for Uniformed Services....................   681
        Prepared Statement of........................................   683
    McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., Commander, Marine Forces
      Reserve, United States Marine Corps Reserve, Department of
      Defense........................................................   319
        Prepared Statement of........................................   320
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   343
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Questions Submitted by.................492, 497, 502, 505, 508, 512
        Statements of..............................................101, 239
    Moakler, Kathleen B., Deputy Director, Government Relations, the
      National Military Family Association, Prepared Statement of....   644
    Myers, General Richard B., U.S. Air Force, Chairman, Joint Chiefs
      of Staff, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.......   347
        Prepared Statement of........................................   362
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   416
        Statement of.................................................   360

    Naval Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of.................   699
    Neurofibromatosis, Inc.--New England, Prepared Statement of......   700
    Obering, Lieutenant General Henry A., III, United States Air
      Force, Director, Missile Defense Agency, Missile Defense
      Program, Department of Defense.................................   517
        Prepared Statement of........................................   529
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   550
        Statement of.................................................   527
    Odom, Dr. Jerome, Distinguished Provost Emeritus, University of
      South Carolina on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   624
    Olanoff, Command Master Sergeant Mark H., U.S. Air Force
      (Retired), Executive Director, The Retired Enlisted Association   575
        Prepared Statement of........................................   576
    Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, Prepared Statement of..........   659
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Prepared Statement of...........   657

    Polly, David W., Jr., M.D., Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and
      Chief of Spine Surgery, University of Minnesota, on behalf of
      the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons...............   590
        Prepared Statement of........................................   591

    Recker, Robert, M.D., Director, Osteoporosis Research Center, on
      behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related
      Bone Diseases..................................................   602
    Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Secretary of Defense, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Defense...............................   347
        Prepared Statement of........................................   356
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   401

    Schoomaker, General Peter J., Chief of Staff of the Army, Office
      of the Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of Defense    31
        Prepared Statement of........................................    36
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    91
    Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., Director, Army National
      Guard, United States Army, Department of Defense...............   268
        Prepared Statement of........................................   248
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   290
    Schwartz, Sue, DBA, RN, Co-Chairman, Health Care Committee,
      Military Officers Association of America, on behalf of The
      Military Coalition (TMC), Prepared Statement of................   692
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
      Submitted by...........25, 95, 231, 292, 342, 489, 495, 501, 550, 555
    Silver, Chief Petty Officer Michael, United States Navy Sea Cadet
      Corps..........................................................   673
    Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   401
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Opening Statements of.................1, 31, 99, 193, 419, 517, 567
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   24,
                                    28, 89, 91, 228, 290, 291, 341, 342,
                                    343, 344, 487, 494, 498, 503, 507, 510,
                                    549, 550
        Statements of..............................................237, 347
    Sullivan, Major General Paul J., Director of the Joint Staff,
      National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   260

    Taylor, Lieutenant General George Peach, Jr., M.D., Air Force
      Surgeon General, Department of the Air Force, Medical Programs,
      Department of Defense..........................................   437
        Prepared Statement of........................................   439
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   498

    Vendemia, Jennifer, Ph.D., on behalf of the American
      Psychological Association......................................   585
        Prepared Statement of........................................   586
    Volvner, Ian, on behalf of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance..   656
        Prepared Statement of........................................   657
    Weaver, Major General Paul A., Jr., U.S. Air Force (Retired), on
      behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
      International..................................................   626
        Prepared Statement of........................................   628
    Willard, Admiral Robert F., Director, Force Structure, Resources,
      and Assessments, Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
      Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense...     1
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    28

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   225
    Aging Tanker Fleet...............................................   223
    Air and Space Power Today........................................   197
    Air and Space Power, Tomorrow Through the FYDP...................   199
    Aircraft Acquisition.............................................   217
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   221
        Excess Capacity Categories...................................   222
    Community Basing Initiative......................................   220
    Continuing Transformation........................................   194
    C-130J Program...................................................   218
    F/A-22 Program...................................................   224
    Flying Operations................................................   214
    Force Shaping....................................................   194
    Future Airspace and Training Ranges..............................   218
    Future Total Force........................................220, 225, 232
    Military Personnel End Strength Management.......................   216
    Personnel Structure..............................................   228
    Program Management...............................................   229
    Quadrennial Defense Review.......................................   217
    Recapitalizing:
        Aging Systems................................................   194
        Force Structure..............................................   214
    Recruiting.......................................................   217
        And Retention................................................   214
    Restoring Trust and Confidence...................................   195
    Shaping Tomorrow's Air and Space Power...........................   210
    Space Radar......................................................   230
    Summary--On Course for the Future................................   213
    Tactical Air Traffic Control.....................................   230
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)..................................   231
    Visiting Airmen Around the World.................................   214

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    Accomplishing the Mission Today: Sustaining Global Commitments...    42
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    89
    Army:
        Aviation Modernization.......................................    91
        Depot Capacity...............................................    85
        Modular Force................................................    70
    Army National Guard:
        Information Systems Redesign.................................    89
        Modularity and Reset.........................................    80
    Attaining a Quality of Life and Well-Being for Our People That
      Match the Quality of Their Service.............................    51
    Balancing Risk: The Tension Between Current and Future Demands...    55
    Decrease in Milcon Budget........................................    83
    Directed Energy Technology.......................................    77
    Dual Status Technicians for Ground Based Mid-Course Mission in
      Alaska.........................................................    87
    Enabling Mission Accomplishment: Four Overarching, Interrelated
      Strate-
      gies...........................................................    43
    End Strength.....................................................    91
    Enlistment Standards.............................................    72
    Firescout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)..........................    87
    Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Funding for Mobilization Stations..    74
    Force Protection.................................................    66
        Industrial Base..............................................    81
    Funding in the Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Request for
      Mobilization and Training Barracks.............................    75
    Funding the Army Modular Force...................................    73
    Future Combat Systems............................................89, 93
    Ground-based Mid-course Mission..................................    86
    Housing at Kawajlein.............................................    88
    Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's).............................    72
        Countermeasures..............................................    76
    Integration of Firescout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)...........    88
    Joint Common Missile.............................................    95
    Military Construction (Milcon)...................................    83
    Mission: Supporting the National Security and Defense Strategies.    41
    Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL)........................    92
    Modularity.......................................................91, 92
    167th Theater Support Command....................................    95
    Optempo..........................................................    73
    Performance of Stryker...........................................    96
        In Small Scale Contingencies.................................    96
    Professional Military Education..................................    92
    Providing Infrastructure to Enable the Force to Fulfill Its
      Strategic Roles and Missions...................................    52
    Providing Relevant and Ready Landpower to Support the Combatant
      Commanders.....................................................    43
    Purpose and Organization of the Posture Statement................    36
    Recruiting and Retention.........................................69, 90
    Remaining Relevant and Ready in Service to the Nation............    56
    Reserve Components Modularity and Reset..........................    78
    Rotorcraft Hub...................................................    90
    Strategic Goal: Remaining Relevant and Ready . . . Today and
      Tomorrow.......................................................    41
    Tourniquets......................................................66, 68
    Training and Equipping Soldiers to Serve as Warriors and Growing
      Adaptive Leaders...............................................    47
    21st Century Security Environment: An Era of Uncertainty and
      Unpredictability...............................................    39
    2005 Army Posture Statement Executive Summary....................    37
    U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Dome Home Initiative...........    88

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   187
    Aircraft:
        Carrier Propellers...........................................   188
        Procurement..................................................   181
    Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD-17)...............................   179
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)..............................   176
    Battleships......................................................   167
    Bloodsworth Island...............................................   169
    Changing the Way We Fight........................................   113
    DD(X)............................................................   173
    Equipment........................................................   108
        And Materiel Readiness.......................................   156
    Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental....................................   190
    Fourth Generation Warfare........................................   182
    Future Readiness.................................................   158
    Future of the Navy Studies.......................................   184
    High Energy Laser Lethality Experiment (HELSTF)..................   189
    Improving Business Practices.....................................   110
    Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Research.......................   176
    Infrastructure...................................................   163
    Introduction and the Value of Readiness..........................   150
    Iraqi Armed Forces...............................................   175
    Joint High Speed Vessel..........................................   187
    LHA(R).........................................................173, 179
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Fire Scout Employment.................   188
    Marine Corps Recruiting........................................168, 178
    Medal of Honor...................................................   187
    Missile Defense..................................................   184
    Navy Desalination Program (EUWP).................................   189
    Operations.......................................................   104
    Our Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request..............................   136
    Personnel Readiness..............................................   151
    Post Cold War Changes............................................   180
    Protective Equipment for Marines.................................   171
    Rocket, Artillery, Mortar Defense................................   190
    Safety...........................................................   164
    Sailors:
        And Marines..................................................   105
        Deployed to Iraq.............................................   183
    Sea Swap Concept on Amphibious Ships.............................   180
    Sea-based Missile Defense........................................   188
    Shaping Our 21st Century Manpower................................   108
    Ship:
        Force Structure............................................165, 178
        Naming.......................................................   178
    Shipbuilding...................................................165, 172
    Stealth on Vessels...............................................   185
    Training and Education...........................................   155
    U.S.S. John F. Kennedy...........................................   166
    U.S.S. San Francisco.............................................   186
    While Transforming to Win Tomorrow...............................   108
    Winning Today . . ...............................................   104
    Winning Today . . . While Transforming to Win Tomorrow...........   103
    Your Navy Today--Focused on Winning the Fight....................   123
    Your Navy Tomorrow--Bridging to the Future.......................   129

                                Medical Programs

    Access to Mental Health Services...............................488, 500
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   487
    Anthrax
        Vaccinations..........................................489, 490, 501
        Vaccine......................................................   495
    CHCS II..........................................................   496
        And TRICARE Online...........................................   502
    Civilian Nurses...........................................506, 509, 514
    Combat Stress....................................................   453
        Control Teams................................................   489
    Composite Health Care System.....................................   492
    Composite Occupational Health and Operational Risk Tracking
      System.........................................................   439
    Critical Care Air Transportation Teams...........................   474
    Deployment:
        Health Surveillance Program..................................   438
        Policy.......................................................   484
    Deployments....................................................509, 513
    Education......................................................508, 512
    Educational Level................................................   486
    Enhance Human Performance........................................   445
    Ensuring a Fit and Healthy Force.................................   440
    Epidemic Outbreak Surveillance Project...........................   438
    Expeditionary:
        Medical Support..............................................   437
        Nursing......................................................   476
    Experience.....................................................509, 513
    Fit to Fight Program.............................................   438
    Health Assessments...............................................   491
    Inadequate Staffing..............................................   485
    Joint Medical Capabilities.......................................   473
    Males in Nurse Corps.............................................   483
    Medical Professionals:
        Loan Repayment...............................................   458
        Recruiting and Retention.....................................   448
    Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.................   497
    Nurse Retention..................................................   475
    Nursing:
        Deployments..................................................   506
        Education....................................................   505
        Experience...................................................   506
        Shortage..............................................505, 508, 512
    One Navy Medicine................................................   472
    Pay Scale Comparisons............................................   486
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.................................492, 502
    Preventing Casualties............................................   442
    Programs for Assessing Physicians................................   455
    Quality Health Services..........................................   471
    Readiness........................................................   470
    Recruiting and Retention.............................489, 503, 507, 510
    Recruitment and Retention......................................450, 482
    Restore Health...................................................   443
    Scholarship Program..............................................   456
    Shaping Tomorrow's Force.........................................   472
    Specialty Providers..............................................   474
    Suicide Prevention...............................................   491
    Supporting Transformation.................................487, 494, 498
    332nd Expeditionary Medical Group................................   475
    TRICARE..........................................................   439
    Training Programs................................................   452
    TriService Nursing Research Program..............................   476
    VA Nurses........................................................   483

                            Missile Defense Program

    Achieving the Strategic Imperative...............................   526
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   549
    Aegis:
        Program and Funding Cut......................................   539
        Signal Processor.............................................   540
    Airborne Laser:
        Applications.................................................   546
        Program......................................................   545
    Arrow Missile Testing at White Sands Missile Range...............   555
    Balanced Funding--Aegis, Laser, Global Missile Defense (GMD).....   538
    Battle Management Command and Control............................   541
    Building an Asymmetric Advantage.................................   524
    Conventional Capabilities Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator........   550
    Cost.............................................................   557
    Countermeasure and Countermeasure Testing........................   562
    Effectiveness....................................................   564
    Executive Decisionmaking Command and Control.....................   541
    Global:
        Enablers.....................................................   522
        Missile Defense Shortfall....................................   539
    Ground-Based:
        Mid-Course Program...........................................   549
        System Testing Program.......................................   542
    Independent Review Team and Testing..............................   543
    Infrastructure Cuts..............................................   538
    Interceptors.....................................................   561
    International Cooperation........................................   544
    Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense   550
    Missile Defense Agency $1 Billion Cut and Programs Affected......   548
    Near-term Priorities.............................................   536
        Technology...................................................   537
    Operational and Technical Readiness..............................   544
    Operator Education Requirements..................................   545
    Out-year Funding.................................................   549
    Performance and Testing..........................................   557
    Space-based Missile Defense Test Bed.............................   540
    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense:
        Test Schedule................................................   554
        Testing......................................................   547
    The 21st Century Global Environment..............................   521
    The Evolving Security Environment................................   529
    Value of Test Ranges to Missile Defense Agency...................   553

                                 National Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   289
    Air National Guard:
        Aircraft.....................................................   276
        Flying Missions..............................................   269
    Air Sovereignty Alert............................................   269
    Air Traffic Control..............................................   291
    America's 21st Century Minutemen--Always Ready, Always There!....   243
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Future Total Force.......   270
    CNGB Executive Summary...........................................   245
    Community-based Citizen Soldier and Airmen Force.................   275
    Future Total Force.............................................292, 293
    Guard Mobilization Sites.........................................   289
    Homeland Defense: Here and Abroad for Over 368 Years......251, 256, 263
    Joint Staff Overview.............................................   260
    Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures..........................   282
    Left Behind Equipment............................................   290
    Message From the Director........................................   254
    Recruiting and Retention.......................................290, 291
    Recruitment......................................................   293
    Reserve Soldiers Employment......................................   289
    State Adjutants General..........................................   267
    Support the Warfight Anytime, Anywhere....................249, 255, 261
    Transformation for the 21st Century..............................   265
        Ready, Reliable, Essential and Accessible....................   253
        Relevant Now . . . and in the Future.........................   258
    ``Serving a Nation at War: At Home and Abroad''..................   248

                            Office of the Secretary

    Abuse of Iraqi Female Prisoners in Iraq..........................   412
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   401
    Appropriate Number of Up-armored Humvees.........................   408
    Army Restructuring...............................................   411
    Cancellation of Joint Common Missile.............................   398
    Completion of Quadrennial Defense Review.........................   400
    Cost and Impact of New Technologies..............................   394
    C-130J:
        Acquisition................................................386, 393
        Program......................................................   414
    Employer Treatment of Guard and Reserve Personnel................   380
    F/A-22 Raptor Program............................................   413
    Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Request............................   359
    Fiscal Year 2006 Request.........................................   359
    F-22 Acquisition.................................................   386
    Global Hawk Program..............................................   414
    Iraqi Security Forces............................................   407
    Joint Warfighting................................................   371
    Maintaining Industrial Capabilities..............................   381
    National Missile Defense.........................................   415
    Number of Troops for Iraq War....................................   389
    Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF).................................   367
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)....................................   364
    Other U.S. Overseas Operations...................................   368
    Pay and Accounting Systems.......................................   395
    Procurement of Planned New Systems...............................   393
    Protecting Troops From Roadside Bombs............................   397
    Protective Equipment for U.S. Troops.............................   396
    Reserve and Guard Retention......................................   409
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator................................386, 414
    Services and Counseling Provided to Surviving Family Members.....   385
    Status of Our Military Personnel.................................   391
    Stress on the:
        Active-Duty and Reserve Force................................   409
        Force........................................................   392
    Transforming the Force...........................................   376
    Urgency of Supplemental Appropriations...........................   381
    Winning the Global War on Terrorism..............................   363
    Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq...................................   413

                                    Reserves

    Activation:
        Impact.......................................................   323
        Philosophy...................................................   323
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   341
    Air Force Reserve:
        Recruitment..................................................   340
        Retention and Equipment......................................   338
    Alignment........................................................   318
    Current Readiness................................................   314
    C-130E...........................................................   345
    Embracing Profound Change........................................   297
    Equipment........................................................   323
    Equipping the Force..............................................   308
    Fiscal Year 2006 Army Reserve Transformation.....................   342
    Fleet Modernization..............................................   333
    Force Generation:
        Management Programs..........................................   302
        Support Programs.............................................   305
    Future:
        Readiness....................................................   316
        Total Force..................................................   344
    Generating the Force.............................................   300
    Infrastructure...................................................   326
    Manpower.........................................................   313
    Quality of Life..................................................   327
    Quality of Service...............................................   317
    Readying the Force...............................................   311
    Recognizing the Necessity for Change.............................   296
    Recruiting and Retention..................................326, 341, 344
    Return on Investment.............................................   321
    Sheltering the Force.............................................   310
    Total Force......................................................   331
    Toward an Expeditionary Future...................................   298
    Training the Force...............................................   309
    Your Marine Corps Reserve Today..................................   320

                     Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

    Accounting Reform................................................    26
    Achieving Sufficient Armor Protection............................    21
    Active/Reserve Recruiting........................................     7
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    24
    Aircraft Program: C-130J/F-22....................................    22
    Appropriateness of Using Supplementals...........................    16
    Army Modularity..................................................     9
    Base Realignment and Closure Commission Savings..................    20
    Chemical Demilitarization........................................    11
    Corrosion Funding................................................    25
    Cost of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom............    24
    Department of Defense Healthcare Facilities......................    18
    Developing and Fielding Joint Military Capabilities..............     5
    Expanded Use of Information Technology to Reduce Healthcare Costs    19
    Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations.....................     6
    Gaining More Rapidly Deployable Units............................     9
    HEALTHeFORCES....................................................    27
    Helicopter Protection............................................    21
    Joint Common Missile.............................................    25
    Kwajalein Joint Control Center...................................    26
    Military Space Programs..........................................    20
    Missile Defense..............................................13, 17, 28
        Program......................................................    12
        Reductions...................................................    17
    Monthly Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.........................    14
    Other Areas of Concern...........................................    23
    Personnel Costs..................................................    15
    Phasing in New Funding for Operations............................     8
    Proposed Aircraft Procurement Reductions.........................    22
    Reducing Stress on the Military..................................     7
    Reduction in Force...............................................    28
    Restructuring U.S. Forces and Global Defense Posture.............     4
    Retention........................................................    24
    Supporting the Global War on Terror..............................     4
    Sustaining Missile Defense Testing and Quality Control...........    13
    Taking Care of our Forces........................................     5
    Vehicle Armor....................................................    21
    What Operations Funding is Included in Supplemental..............    14
    When Supplemental is Needed......................................     6

                                       -