[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) 4 32 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) 4 32 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 10 10 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
-